Evidence Hub

Post-policy evaluation lags of tobacco and nicotine product policies: a systematic review from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom

Huma Aziz, Andrea M. Hayes, Omotayo Francis Fagbule, Ene Ikpebe, Bukola Peters

Frontiers in Public Health, 2026

14 participants

Abstract

Objective This systematic review examines the time interval between policy implementation and evaluation of behavioral results in tobacco control studies (evaluation lag) as well as reported estimates. Results can help policymakers avoid premature conclusions and make more informed decisions about policy effectiveness. Methods We reviewed studies from 2010 onward evaluating the effects of policies implemented at national-level or across majority provinces on behavioral outcomes, including tobacco use, cessation attempts, and secondhand smoke exposure, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Eligible studies were published in the English language. The search databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and government websites. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data. A third reviewer resolved conflicts. Study quality was assessed via the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Results A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated policies across various time points ranging from 6 months to 1 year ( n = 5), one to 2 years ( n = 12), more than 2 years ( n = 5) and multiple time points ( n = 2). The policies evaluated included smoke-free (n = 4, 19.1%), retail-related ( n = 14, 66.6%) and nicotine-related ( n = 3, 14.3%). In the risk of bias assessment, 19 studies had low risk (90.5%) and two studies had uncertain risk (9.5%). Most of the smoke-free…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 14 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free