Summary box
Although tobacco control policies have been adopted across the globe, effective implementation
continues to be a major challenge, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries,
where almost 80% of the world’s smokers reside.
This conceptual framework illustrates the constellation of factors that have been
shown to influence implementation fidelity: political commitment, institutional capacity
and operational effectiveness, social climate and tobacco industry interference.
Researchers and practitioners can use this framework to identify the points of leverage
in the implementation process and contribute to actionable knowledge as well as theory
development.
As outlined in the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), addressing
the tobacco epidemic is most effectively done through policy responses such as tobacco
taxes, smoke-free public places and bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.1
2 Although tobacco control policies have been adopted across the globe, effective
implementation continues to be a major challenge, particularly in low-income and middle-income
countries (LMICs),3–7 where almost 80% of the world’s smokers reside and where the
majority of tobacco-related deaths are occurring.8 In order to fully realise the public
health benefit from FCTC policies, effective implementation is required.
Policy implementation is a critical stage in the policy-making process, preceded by
agenda setting, policy formulation and policy adoption.9 It can be broadly defined
as the stage that focuses on ‘turning policy intentions into action’,10 including
the activities undertaken by groups aimed at achieving the objectives set forth by
the adopted policy.11 When a policy is implemented as intended by its designers, the
implementation process is considered to have high fidelity, which can in turn positively
affect the desired policy outcome.12
Although a number of renowned policy implementation models, frameworks and theories
are available,13 14 none of these are sufficiently specific to tobacco control, which
is complicated by the strategies and tactics of transnational tobacco companies. In
fact, one of the most commonly cited barriers to tobacco control policy implementation
around the world is tobacco industry interference.3–5 Existing models that do touch
on the concept of partnership have focused solely on the positive aspect of engaging
stakeholders without taking into account opponents or disruptors.15 Moreover, the
applicability of these existing frameworks and theories to LMICs requires further
exploration in general, as these countries face unique challenges including a lack
of resources, the need for more political support, a lack of sufficient national and
local research, and limited state capacity16–18 (defined here as the ability of states
to provide public goods).19 A study examining the implementation of health warning
labels, for example, found that countries with weaker state capacity were less likely
to implement FCTC-compliant health warning labels.18 Public health researchers have
urged for a better understanding of the process of effectively translating tobacco
control policy into practice, particularly in LMICs, an understanding that encompasses
the political and economic dynamics of the process.20
The implementation framework presented here draws on existing frameworks, theories
and studies, the FCTC, and experiences of experts at the Johns Hopkins Institute for
Global Tobacco Control. Critical factors were identified by triangulating the aforementioned
sources. As illustrated in figure 1, the framework depicts the constellation of factors
that influence implementation fidelity and aims to enable countries to improve the
implementation of, and compliance with, tobacco control policies. Tobacco control
advocates can use this framework to better manage the policy implementation process
in their countries, uncover weak areas of implementation, and leverage associated
strengths and opportunities. Interventions can also be devised to target identified
gaps.
Figure 1
Framework.
The framework outlines four interacting components and related factors that have been
shown to contribute to increased implementation fidelity: the first component relates
to the political commitment from high-level decision makers in the country. Public
policy scholars have long argued that favourable changes in government, such as turnover
of key governmental actors as a result of elections and complementary priorities of
the ruling party, can serve as facilitators.13 In the Philippines, for example, elections
brought about new leaders who were keen on increasing tax collection efficiency and
achieving universal healthcare. This created an opportunity for advocates to convince
decision makers to change the existing tax structure on tobacco and alcohol products
in order to generate resources for health, which ultimately enabled the successful
enactment and implementation of the Republic Act 10351, otherwise known as the ‘Sin
Tax’.21 As tobacco control transcends national borders, a country’s relationship with
the rest of the world, including its trade agreements and foreign policy, may also
influence the level of political commitment for tobacco control. Turkey’s desire to
gain global visibility, for example, created a political environment that was receptive
to global norms and standards, facilitating the adoption of its 100% smoke-free legislation.22
The second component describes the institutional capacity and operational effectiveness
of the country, state/province or municipality. Effective implementation requires
networks to be forged across sectors and among key stakeholders. Such networks can
provide a critical platform for information exchange and the sharing of resources,
knowledge and expertise.23 It also allows organisations to find solutions outside
their traditional boundaries and address policy misalignment across sectors.24 In
Zambia, for example, misalignment between the health and economic sectors served as
a key barrier to the implementation of FCTC. Fostering economic growth through providing
investment incentives, including for tobacco production, was central to the country’s
economic agenda; this is despite the high burden of tobacco use in the country and
the FCTC’s goal of decreasing tobacco use globally.24 Effective implementation also
benefits from a functioning system, the presence of a detailed implementation plan
that clearly defines roles, and responsibilities and sufficient investments to ensure
adequate resources and workforce.14 This second component is consistent with Articles
5.1 and 5.2 of the FCTC that requires parties to have multisectoral national tobacco
control strategies and national coordinating mechanisms.
The social climate makes up the third component: this is characterised by norms, practices
and beliefs throughout the fabric of society that increases the likelihood of policy
compliance. The presence of advocacy groups actively devising strategies to facilitate
implementation and increase compliance is also critical.13 These groups tend to be
more powerful when linked to a global tobacco control network.25 26 In Colombia, for
example, global and domestic actors worked collaboratively to implement the country’s
tobacco control law. Together, this transnational advocacy network ensured implementation
fidelity through an array of activities including increasing public awareness, sensitising
decision makers and monitoring for non-compliance.26
Finally, the fourth component refers to tobacco industry interference in the country.
Tobacco companies frequently employ an array of tactics including lobbying, political
campaign contributions, corporate social responsibility activities and litigation
to influence the policy-making process.3–5 Implementation is likely to be even more
difficult if these companies are cohesive and able to influence government officials
and key decision makers. In India, for example, multinational tobacco companies, local
bidi producers and smokeless tobacco companies joined forces to successfully delay
the implementation of graphic health warning labels in 2007.27 It is important to
note that countries like China and Japan face a unique set of challenges given that
the tobacco companies are state-owned and curbing tobacco use can threaten government
income. The level of a country’s adherence to FCTC Article 5.3 (parties protecting
policy setting and implementation from commercial and other vested interests of the
tobacco industry) can also be influential. Unfortunately, findings from the 2019 Global
Tobacco Industry Interference Index showed that adherence to Article 5.3 has been
‘far from satisfactory’ (p. 5) worldwide.28
As illustrated in figure 1, these four components interrelate. Political commitment
for policy generation and effective implementation, for example, can influence the
number of resources dedicated to the issue,29 thereby enhancing institutional capacity
and operational effectiveness. It can also have a direct impact on the population’s
acceptance of the policy30 and industry interference; and, committed leaders may seek
to cultivate an environment that diminishes interference by adhering to FCTC Article
5.3. Likewise, enhanced institutional capacity and operational effectiveness can help
foster a receptive social climate and address industry interference through both effective
enforcement and public education. It also has the potential to influence political
commitment through the presence of an empowered network of stakeholders and political
constituents. A conducive social climate may encourage politicians to be more committed
and lessen the amount of resources required to enforce the policy and fuel support
to prevent tobacco industry interference.26 On the other hand, the tobacco industry
can also negatively affect the other three components by lobbying politicians, interfering
with enforcement efforts and disseminating false evidence to the public.3–5
There are some limitations to this framework. The relative importance of each of the
components needs to be further explored. Likewise, critical questions such as how
can we best leverage the different components to achieve implementation fidelity,
specifically if certain components are weak also need to be answered. Despite these
limitations, however, this framework draws from multiple sources of evidence and contributes
to the field of health policy research in LMICs by identifying, compiling and outlining
in a clear and concise manner the critical factors to be considered if the implementation
of effective and reliable tobacco control policies in LMICs is to be achieved. We
hope that future studies will be undertaken to test and refine this framework and
to explore the applicability of this framework to other public health epidemics perpetuated
by powerful industries (eg, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages). Such evidence
will contribute to actionable knowledge and would have substantial value for both
theory development and practice.