Table 1 UK’s status of tobacco control policies and additional modelled policies to maximise Tobacco Control Scale

Price

27 out of 30 [20 % retail price increase]

3.5 % reduction for 10 % price increase [19]

For each 10 % price increase, prevalence relative decreases by [18]: Lowest SEC: 6.3 %

20 % price increase. The effect on prevalence was modelled from published price elasticities by SEC.

Highest SEC: 1.2 %

Smoke-free places

21 out of 22 [Smoking in cars with minors banned as of October 2015 and extend ban to all public places]

Worksite total ban 6 % reduction compared to 2 % for partial ban; Restaurant total ban 1 % reduction [21, 22]

Smoke-free workplaces generally favour higher SEC [9, 12]. Mixed evidence for other types smoke-free places [10, 12].

Additional 1 % prevalence relative reduction possible because little room for improvement. Assume no SEC gradient.

Public information campaigns

3 out of 15 [a five-fold increase to 2012 government budget spending media campaigns]

Maximum annual effect 2 % [26, 27]

Often favour highest SEC [28]

Additional 1 % (average) prevalence relative reduction possible because moderate campaigns already in place. Assume Highest SEC twice as responsive as Lowest SEC.

Advertising bans

10 out of 13 [Point-of-sale and display ad ban in small stores as of April 2015]

Comprehensive ban 5 % prevalence reduction; Total ban 3 % reduction; Weak ban 1 % reduction [21, 29]

No evidence of gradient [9, 10]

Additional 2 % prevalence relative reduction possible

Health Warnings (including plain packaging)

4 out of 10 [Plain packaging approved by Parliament, larger health warnings (>80 % of the packet)]

Large bold graphic warnings reduce prevalence by 2 %; Weaker warnings 1 % reduction. Plain packaging has maximum effect similar to health warnings [33]

No evidence of gradient [9, 10, 35]

Additional 3 % prevalence relative reduction possible (1 % from larger health warnings and 2 % from plain packaging).

Treatment

9 out of 10 [Full reimbursement of treatment]

4.75 % reduction in prevalence (no details on individual components of treatment policy) [21]

Low SEC may have lower success, but programs can be targeted to eliminate gradient [36]

Additional 0.5 % prevalence relative reduction possible because most elements in place already. No SEC gradient