Skip to main content


Table 1 Policy priority ranking

From: Tobacco control in the Russian Federation- a policy analysis

Intervention Magnitude Feasibility Vulnerable populations Evidence base Costs Score
Tax raises Total population Low effort, resistance from industry Women, children, youth   For enforcement 12
+++ ++ +++ +++ +
Smoking ban in public places Most of population Difficult to enforce Women, children, youth   For enforcement 11
+++ + +++ +++ +
Advertising ban Population amenable to marketing Low effort, resistance from industry Women, youth   Low 10
++ ++ ++ + +++
Warning labels Smokers amenable to risk communication Low effort, resistance from industry Women, youth   Low 9
+ ++ ++ + +++
Smoking cessation programs Smokers willing to quit Need to train professionals Effects from secondhand smoke   Program costs 8
++ + + +++ +
  1. We developed the following criteria for prioritization of future tobacco control policies and programs: magnitude as estimated number of smokers and non-smokers affected; feasibility of policy change vis-a-vis expected political resistance or support from various stakeholders (such as parliament, ministries, administrations, scientific and professional organizations, non-governmental organizations, tobacco industry, etc.); expected impact on vulnerable populations such as youths or women; evidence base for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and projected costs associated with instating policies or implementing program in orders of magnitude.
  2. The assigned scores, ranging from + (low effect, less desirable), ++ (medium effect), +++ (high effect, most desirable) for each equally weighed criterion, were summed up for each row to a total score.