印度尼西亚烟草控制改革五年来的相关论述:网络媒体报道内容分析。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Beladenta Amalia, Putu Ayu Swandewi Astuti, Joanna E Cohen
{"title":"印度尼西亚烟草控制改革五年来的相关论述:网络媒体报道内容分析。","authors":"Beladenta Amalia, Putu Ayu Swandewi Astuti, Joanna E Cohen","doi":"10.1136/tc-2024-058661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2017, Indonesia initiated the amendment of its 11-year-old tobacco control regulation (PP 109/2012) to reduce smoking among youth, but the process was stalled. The proposed changes in the regulation include a full ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS), increasing health warning label (HWL) size and regulating electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). This study analysed the arguments and actors for and against the PP 109/2012 amendment in online media articles.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Content analysis of 326 online articles reporting on the PP 109/2012 amendment published from 2018 to 2023, retrieved from the Tobacco Watcher platform. We coded articles for statements supporting or opposing the amendment (position statement), content of the arguments used to support (supporting argument) and oppose (opposing argument) the amendment, actors presenting the arguments and tobacco control measures. We iteratively reviewed and coded data and presented the frequency of categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 332 position statements, 53.3% were against the amendment. The main categories of supporting arguments (N=1448) included smoking trends (21.1%), health implications (16.6%), science-based evidence (9.6%) and protecting the population (9.2%). Opposing arguments (N=1413) emphasised the tobacco farmers' welfare (16.6%), impact on the industry (16.4%) and current regulation is sufficient (11.0%). Supporting actors were predominantly health-related entities and government officials (89.3%), while 62.1% of opposing actors included trade and Islamic groups, the tobacco industry and front groups. HWLs, e-cigarette/heated tobacco product regulation and TAPS were the main (77.8%) tobacco control measures mentioned in the proamendment arguments, while HWLs, TAPS and cigarette sale restrictions were the dominant (79.3%) tobacco control measures in anti-amendment arguments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Indonesia's tobacco control reform faced opposition by false claims primarily from industry allies, resulting in a 5-year delay in enactment. Future tobacco control media advocacy must address these claims and emphasise the alignment of economic interests with public health goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":23145,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five years of discourse related to Indonesia tobacco control reform: a content analysis of online media coverage.\",\"authors\":\"Beladenta Amalia, Putu Ayu Swandewi Astuti, Joanna E Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/tc-2024-058661\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2017, Indonesia initiated the amendment of its 11-year-old tobacco control regulation (PP 109/2012) to reduce smoking among youth, but the process was stalled. The proposed changes in the regulation include a full ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS), increasing health warning label (HWL) size and regulating electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). This study analysed the arguments and actors for and against the PP 109/2012 amendment in online media articles.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Content analysis of 326 online articles reporting on the PP 109/2012 amendment published from 2018 to 2023, retrieved from the Tobacco Watcher platform. We coded articles for statements supporting or opposing the amendment (position statement), content of the arguments used to support (supporting argument) and oppose (opposing argument) the amendment, actors presenting the arguments and tobacco control measures. We iteratively reviewed and coded data and presented the frequency of categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 332 position statements, 53.3% were against the amendment. The main categories of supporting arguments (N=1448) included smoking trends (21.1%), health implications (16.6%), science-based evidence (9.6%) and protecting the population (9.2%). Opposing arguments (N=1413) emphasised the tobacco farmers' welfare (16.6%), impact on the industry (16.4%) and current regulation is sufficient (11.0%). Supporting actors were predominantly health-related entities and government officials (89.3%), while 62.1% of opposing actors included trade and Islamic groups, the tobacco industry and front groups. HWLs, e-cigarette/heated tobacco product regulation and TAPS were the main (77.8%) tobacco control measures mentioned in the proamendment arguments, while HWLs, TAPS and cigarette sale restrictions were the dominant (79.3%) tobacco control measures in anti-amendment arguments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Indonesia's tobacco control reform faced opposition by false claims primarily from industry allies, resulting in a 5-year delay in enactment. Future tobacco control media advocacy must address these claims and emphasise the alignment of economic interests with public health goals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tobacco Control\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tobacco Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058661\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058661","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2017 年,印度尼西亚启动了对已有 11 年历史的控烟条例(PP 109/2012)的修订工作,以减少青少年吸烟,但这一进程停滞不前。该法规的修改建议包括全面禁止烟草广告、促销和赞助(TAPS),增加健康警示标签(HWL)的尺寸,以及规范电子烟(e-cigarettes)。本研究分析了网络媒体文章中支持和反对 PP 109/2012 修正案的论点和参与者:对2018年至2023年期间发表的326篇报道PP 109/2012修正案的在线文章进行内容分析,这些文章均从烟草观察者平台上检索。我们对文章中支持或反对修正案的声明(立场声明)、用于支持(支持论据)和反对(反对论据)修正案的论据内容、提出论据的演员和控烟措施进行了编码。我们对数据进行了反复审查和编码,并列出了各类数据的频率:结果:在 332 份立场声明中,53.3% 反对修正案。支持论点(N=1448)的主要类别包括吸烟趋势(21.1%)、健康影响(16.6%)、科学证据(9.6%)和保护人口(9.2%)。反对者(N=1413)强调烟农的福利(16.6%)、对行业的影响(16.4%)和目前的监管已经足够(11.0%)。支持者主要是健康相关实体和政府官员(89.3%),而 62.1%的反对者包括贸易和伊斯兰团体、烟草行业和前线团体。在支持修正案的论点中,主要(77.8%)提及的烟草控制措施是烟草专卖品、电子烟/加热烟草制品法规和烟草专卖制度,而在反对修正案的论点中,主要(79.3%)提及的烟草控制措施是烟草专卖品、烟草专卖制度和卷烟销售限制:结论:印尼的烟草控制改革面临着主要来自行业盟友的虚假主张的反对,导致烟草控制改革的颁布延迟了 5 年。未来的烟草控制媒体宣传必须解决这些问题,并强调经济利益与公共卫生目标的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Five years of discourse related to Indonesia tobacco control reform: a content analysis of online media coverage.

Background: In 2017, Indonesia initiated the amendment of its 11-year-old tobacco control regulation (PP 109/2012) to reduce smoking among youth, but the process was stalled. The proposed changes in the regulation include a full ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS), increasing health warning label (HWL) size and regulating electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). This study analysed the arguments and actors for and against the PP 109/2012 amendment in online media articles.

Method: Content analysis of 326 online articles reporting on the PP 109/2012 amendment published from 2018 to 2023, retrieved from the Tobacco Watcher platform. We coded articles for statements supporting or opposing the amendment (position statement), content of the arguments used to support (supporting argument) and oppose (opposing argument) the amendment, actors presenting the arguments and tobacco control measures. We iteratively reviewed and coded data and presented the frequency of categories.

Results: Of 332 position statements, 53.3% were against the amendment. The main categories of supporting arguments (N=1448) included smoking trends (21.1%), health implications (16.6%), science-based evidence (9.6%) and protecting the population (9.2%). Opposing arguments (N=1413) emphasised the tobacco farmers' welfare (16.6%), impact on the industry (16.4%) and current regulation is sufficient (11.0%). Supporting actors were predominantly health-related entities and government officials (89.3%), while 62.1% of opposing actors included trade and Islamic groups, the tobacco industry and front groups. HWLs, e-cigarette/heated tobacco product regulation and TAPS were the main (77.8%) tobacco control measures mentioned in the proamendment arguments, while HWLs, TAPS and cigarette sale restrictions were the dominant (79.3%) tobacco control measures in anti-amendment arguments.

Conclusion: Indonesia's tobacco control reform faced opposition by false claims primarily from industry allies, resulting in a 5-year delay in enactment. Future tobacco control media advocacy must address these claims and emphasise the alignment of economic interests with public health goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tobacco Control
Tobacco Control 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
26.90%
发文量
223
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Tobacco Control is an international peer-reviewed journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco''s effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population-level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信