Home
Issues
Aim & Scope
Editorial Board
Open Access
Indexing
Why publish with us
Contact us
Instructions to Authors (PDF)
Manuscript Types
Manuscript Formatting
How to submit
Special publications & Reprints
Preprints
Authorship & COI
Principles of Transparency Checklist
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
CrossMark
Data Policies
Supporting Diversity
RESEARCH PAPER
The influence of public opinion on tobacco control policy-making in Georgia: Perspectives of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders
1
FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center in Georgia
2
Georgian Health Promotion and Education Foundation, Georgia
3
Department of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, Norway
Submission date: 2015-11-03
Final revision date: 2016-01-24
Acceptance date: 2016-01-26
Publication date: 2016-01-29
Corresponding author
George Bakhturidze
Department of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, 4, Vani st, 0119 Tbilisi, Georgia
Department of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, 4, Vani st, 0119 Tbilisi, Georgia
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2016;2(January):1
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Georgia has one of the highest smoking rates (36%) in Europe. This may be due partly to the fact that the present Georgian tobacco control regulations are weakly enforced. It is unclear if the authorities are aware that they would have majority public support for tighter enforcement of tobacco control regulations. The study aimed to fill a knowledge gap by addressing these research questions: (1) To what degree are policy makers aware of the Georgian public’s opinions about tobacco control and enforcement? (2) To what degree do policy makers take Georgian public opinion into account in their decision-making, including tobacco control and enforcement?
Methods:
This study used a collective case study methodology. The data were obtained through 12 semi-structured interviews during the period from April to May 2013, with three respondents each from the Ministry of Health, the Parliament of Georgia, Opinion Research Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations. Thematic Network Analysis was used to analyze the interview data.
Results:
Policy-makers are aware that public opinion favors tobacco control and enforcement. However, Georgian politicians don’t take public opinion into account during policy-making. Tobacco industry influence is very strong in the Georgian policy-making arena. Some policy-makers are themselves lobbyists for the tobacco industry, and ignore public opinion. Public health planning and strategy development occur without public involvement.
Conclusions:
Georgia faces a challenge in increasing the influence of public opinion in health policy making generally, and in tobacco control in particular.
Georgia has one of the highest smoking rates (36%) in Europe. This may be due partly to the fact that the present Georgian tobacco control regulations are weakly enforced. It is unclear if the authorities are aware that they would have majority public support for tighter enforcement of tobacco control regulations. The study aimed to fill a knowledge gap by addressing these research questions: (1) To what degree are policy makers aware of the Georgian public’s opinions about tobacco control and enforcement? (2) To what degree do policy makers take Georgian public opinion into account in their decision-making, including tobacco control and enforcement?
Methods:
This study used a collective case study methodology. The data were obtained through 12 semi-structured interviews during the period from April to May 2013, with three respondents each from the Ministry of Health, the Parliament of Georgia, Opinion Research Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations. Thematic Network Analysis was used to analyze the interview data.
Results:
Policy-makers are aware that public opinion favors tobacco control and enforcement. However, Georgian politicians don’t take public opinion into account during policy-making. Tobacco industry influence is very strong in the Georgian policy-making arena. Some policy-makers are themselves lobbyists for the tobacco industry, and ignore public opinion. Public health planning and strategy development occur without public involvement.
Conclusions:
Georgia faces a challenge in increasing the influence of public opinion in health policy making generally, and in tobacco control in particular.
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Bakhturidze GB, Ross H, What J, et al. Population survey on tobacco economy and policy in Georgia. FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center in Georgia 2008; 4-22.
2.
Gilmore A, Pomerleau J, McKee M, et al. Prevalence of Smoking in 8 Countries of the Former Soviet Union: Results From the Living Conditions, Lifestyles and Health Study. American Journal of Public Health 2004; 94(12): 2177-87. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2177.
3.
Georgian Law on Tobacco Control. Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/en/docum... (accessed 12 Dec 2010).
4.
Administrative Offences Code of Georgia. Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/en/docum... (accessed 11 Dec 2015).
5.
WHO. Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/signat... (accessed 12 Feb 2015).
6.
Bakhturidze G, Peikrishvili N, Mittelmark M, Aaro L. The public’s attitudes towards tobacco sales prohibitions: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in the former Soviet state of Georgia. Tobacco Control and Public Health in Eastern Europe 2012; 2(2):99-108. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.97675.
7.
Bakhturidze G, Mittelmark M, Aaro L, Peikrishvili N. Attitudes towards smoking restrictions and tobacco advertisement bans in Georgia. BMJ Open 2013; 3:1-10. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003461.
8.
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Secretariat mission Report for Georgia, 2013. Available at: http://ncdc.ge/pdf/ENG631.pdf.
9.
Ravara S, Castelo-Branco M, Aguiar P, Calheiros J. Compliance and enforcement of a partial smoking ban in Lisbon taxi: an exploratory cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:134. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-134.
10.
Vardavas C, Dimitrakaki Ch, Schoretsaniti S, et al. The role of the non-smoker in enforcing smoke-free laws. Journal of Public Health Policy 2011, 32, 46-59. doi:10.1057/jphp.2010.45.
11.
Nagelhout G, De Vries H, Fong G, et al. Pathways of Change Explaining the Effect of Smoke-Free Legislation on Smoking Cessation in the Netherlands. An Application of the International Tobacco Control Conceptual Model. Nicotine Tob Res (2012) 14 (12): 1474-1482. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts081.
12.
Soroka SN, Wlezien C. Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective. Can Political SciAssoc 2004, 37:531–59. doi: 10.1017/s0008423904030860.
13.
Petry F. How policy makers view public opinion. University of Toronto Press 2005, 6:1-32.
14.
Brooks J E, Manza J. Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. Am Sociol Assoc 2006, 71:474–94. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100306.
15.
Monroe, A. Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993. The Public Opinion Quarterly 1998, 62(1):6-28. doi: 10.1086/297828.
16.
Warner K, Tam J. The impact of tobacco control research on policy: 20 years of progress. Tobacco control 2012, 21:103-109. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050396.
17.
Burstein P. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress: What the Public Wants and What It Gets. Cambridge University Press 2014:1-19, 45-70. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139628723.003.
18.
Johnson M, Brace P, Arceneaux K. Public opinion and dynamic representation in the American States: the case of environmental attitudes. SocSci 2005, 86:88–105. doi: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00292.x.
19.
Weakliem DL. Public opinion research and political sociology. Research in Political Sociology 2003, 12:49–80.
20.
Bishop P, Davis G. Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2002, 61(1):14-29. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00255.
21.
Horne C. The Consistency of Policy with Opinion in the Russian Federation, 1992-2006. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 2012, 22(3):215-244. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2012.691882.
22.
Kingdon J. (2011) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman classics in political science 196-208.
23.
Howlett M, Ramesh M. Studying public policy – policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford University Press 2003, 129, 163, 185-204.
24.
Fritschler L, Rudder. Smoking and politics. Bureaucracy centered policymaking. Pearson Education, Inc 2007, 12-43, 155-173.
25.
McAllister I. Public opinion in Australia on restricting smoking in public places. Tob Control 1995, 4:30–5. doi:10.1136/tc.4.1.30.
26.
Trotter L, Mullins R. Environmental tobacco smoke: surveys of restaurant patrons and hospitality industry personnel. Quit Eval Stud 1996, 9:27–41. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003461.
27.
Reddy P, Meyer-Weitz A, Yach D. Smoking status, knowledge of health effects and attitudes towards tobacco control in South Africa. S Afr Med J 1996, 86:1389–93.
28.
Lazuras L, Rodafinos A, Panagiotakos DB et al. Support for smoke-free policies in a pro-smoking culture: findings from the European survey on tobacco control attitudes and knowledge. Int J Public Health 2009, 54:403–8. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-0074-2.
29.
Paulik E, Maroti-Nagy A, Nagymajteni L et al. Support for population level tobacco control policies in Hungary. Cent Eur J Public Health 2012, 20:75–80.
30.
Andreeva T, Kharchenko N, Krasovsky K et al. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Ukraine. WHO, Country Report 2010.Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/sur..._ ukraine_report_2010.pdf.
31.
Chuchalin A, Sakharova G, Antonov N et al. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Russian Federation. WHO, Country Report 2009. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/sur..._ gats_russian_countryreport.pdf.
32.
Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA 2007, Sage: 35-41.
33.
Attride-Stirling J.A (2001) Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Sage. Qualitative Research 1(3):385-405. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100307.
34.
WHO. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. 1986. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthpromo....
35.
Chanturidze T, Ugulava T, Duran A et al (2009) Georgia; Health system review. Health Systems in Transitions 11(8):85.
36.
Hauschild, T and Berkhout, E. Health-care reform in Georgia; A Civil-Society Perspective: Country Case Study. Oxfam International 2009, 36.
37.
UNICEF and National Center for Diseases Control of Georgia (NCDC). Evaluation of Health Promotion and Communication system Georgia 2010, 1-60. Available at:. http://ncdc.ge/uploads/publica....
38.
Chanturidze T. Lessons learned: developing the health promotion strategy and action plan in Georgia. Oxford Policy Management 2010, 5:1-4.
39.
Raminashvili D, Bakhturidze G, Zarnadze I et al. Promoting health in Georgia. Global Health Promotion 2014, 21(1):5-12. doi: 10.1177/1757975913508592.
40.
WHO. The International Conference on Public Health Priorities in the 21st Century: The Endgame for Tobacco (2013) Available at: http://www.endgameconference20....
41.
WHO-Euro. European Tobacco Control Status Report 2013. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data....
42.
Government of Georgia on Approval of Georgian State Strategy on Tobacco Control. Resolution N 196, 30.07.2013. Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/index.ph....
CITATIONS (1):
1.
Smokers’ and Nonsmokers’ Receptivity to Smoke-Free Policies and Pro- and Anti-Policy Messaging in Armenia and Georgia
Marina Topuridze, Carla Berg, Ana Dekanosidze, Arevik Torosyan, Lilit Grigoryan, Alexander Bazarchyan, Zhanna Sargsyan, Varduhi Hayrumyan, Nino Maglakelidze, Lela Sturua, Regine Haardörfer, Michelle Kegler
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Marina Topuridze, Carla Berg, Ana Dekanosidze, Arevik Torosyan, Lilit Grigoryan, Alexander Bazarchyan, Zhanna Sargsyan, Varduhi Hayrumyan, Nino Maglakelidze, Lela Sturua, Regine Haardörfer, Michelle Kegler
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2459-3087 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
