$20 Bonus + 25% OFF CLAIM OFFER

Place Your Order With Us Today And Go Stress-Free

Public Health Challenge -Tobacco Smoking
  • 10

  • Course Code: LBR7455
  • University:
  • Country: United Kingdom

Introduction 

The global health impact of tobacco smoking makes it a pressing public health issue. Alarming statistics make tobacco smoking a major issue. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, killing over 8 million people annually (World Health Organization, 2023). Second-hand smoke exposure affects millions of non-smokers, especially children and vulnerable populations, worsening the public health crisis. The economic burden of treating smoking-related illnesses on healthcare systems and societies makes this challenge even greater.

Health definitions and public health principles underpin tobacco smoking's public health importance. This aligns with the WHO's definition of health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, which tobacco smoking undermines (Yazdi Feyzabadi et al., 2018). Public health principles of disease prevention, health promotion, and population health improvement align with tobacco smoking prevention. Social justice, a cornerstone of public health, emphasises the need to address tobacco smoking's disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities.

Tobacco smoking affects developed and developing nations worldwide. Smoking prevalence varies by region and demographic. Tobacco-related illness and death are highest in low- and middle-income countries, where 80% of the 1.3 billion tobacco users live (UICC, 2023). Due to the tobacco industry's aggressive marketing and weak tobacco control measures, low- and middle-income countries bear a heavy burden. The health disparities caused by tobacco smoking are disproportionately felt by marginalised and low-income communities.

Analytical Framework

The 1985 Tannahill Model includes Health Education, Health Protection, and Disease Prevention to provide a framework for public health interventions. 

This model was developed to meet public health practice's changing needs and the need for a multifaceted approach to health issues (Tannahill, 1985). It was created to overcome the limitations of previous frameworks that focused on specific health aspects. The Tannahill Model's holistic approach allows practitioners to consider the interplay of health factors, making it suitable for analysing tobacco smoking across multiple practise domains.

The Tannahill Model's components match tobacco smoking's complexity. Health Protection involves regulating the tobacco industry, protecting non-smokers, and reducing second-hand smoke. Individual Change fits smoking cessation and behaviour modification programmes for tobacco addicts. Finally, Community Development collaborates to raise awareness, create supportive environments, and address socio-cultural tobacco use factors.

Practitioners can address the tobacco smoking problem holistically by using the Tannahill Model, which recognises that successful interventions often require strategies from all three components. This model's evolution shows the field's growing awareness of health determinants' interconnectedness and the need for multifaceted approaches to complex public health issues.
Tannahill Model
 
Figure 1: Application of Tannahill Model to Public Health Challenge of Tobacco smoking (Source: West, 2017)

Objectives and Scope 

This paper analyses three practise domains—Health Protection, Individual Change, and Community Development—to examine tobacco smoking's public health impact. This includes theoretical foundations, practical interventions, and ethical considerations. The paper assesses each domain's tobacco smoking management potential using the Tannahill Model. It concludes through case studies and critical analysis that the most appropriate domain and integrated approaches are needed to address this complex public health issue.

Also Read - Nursing Assignment Help

Main Analysis: Health Protection

Definition and Principles

In public health, health protection involves proactive management of health risks and threats. Its main goal is to prevent and control diseases and hazards to protect people and communities. Health protection includes policy development, risk assessment, surveillance, and timely interventions to reduce health risks (Green et al., 2020). Creating environments where people can thrive without unnecessary health risks is the goal.

Disease prevention, risk management, and safety are the main principles of public health protection (Peres et al., 2019). Vaccination campaigns and quarantine protocols prevent disease spread. Assessing health risks from various factors allows informed decision-making to reduce them. This includes assessing health risks and taking action. Policies and regulations also reduce health risks and keep the environment safe.

Health Protection Framework
Figure 2: Health Protection Framework (Source: Peres et al., 2019)

Alignment with Tannahill Model

The Tannahill Model's health protection component fits seamlessly. The Tannahill Model's health protection component is proactive health protection. Health protection interventions address immediate health threats and hazards to prevent harm, following risk assessment and timely intervention (Tannahill, 1985). Health protection ensures individual and community safety by reducing health risks and controlling disease spread.

Also Read - Oncology Nursing Assignment Help

Ethical Dilemmas

Public health practitioners must navigate ethical issues when protecting health. Balancing individual rights and collective well-being is an important ethical issue (Meghji et al., 2021). Quarantines and vaccination mandates can raise concerns about personal autonomy and civil liberties. Transparency about risks and protective measures while respecting privacy rights can be ethically complex. Equal access to health protection is another ethical issue, as vulnerable populations may face barriers.

Public health professionals also struggle with the ethical conflict between health and trust. To reduce health risks, strict measures should be balanced with open communication and cultural respect (Prochaska et al., 2017). These ethical dilemmas require a strong commitment to individual rights, the greater good, and public health authority-community trust.

Case Study

Smoke-free laws in various countries demonstrate the effectiveness of health protection interventions in reducing tobacco smoking. Ireland's 2004 Smoke-free Workplace Act is an example. This law banned smoking in enclosed workplaces like bars, restaurants, and public spaces, improving public health (Li et al., 2020). The act reduced second-hand smoke to protect smokers and non-smokers from its well-known health risks.

The intervention strategy included policy enactment, public education, and effective enforcement (Boderie et al., 2021). The legislation reduced second-hand smoke exposure and changed smoking norms by regulating public smoking. This health protection intervention was successful due to government, public health, and advocacy collaboration.

Suitability of Health Protection

Smoke-free legislation and other health protection measures have many benefits for addressing the tobacco smoking problem. Their ability to immediately improve public health is a strength (Conner and Norman, 2017). These interventions quickly improve smokers' and non-smokers' health by restricting second-hand smoke exposure.

Health protection measures have limitations, which must be acknowledged. They reduce environmental exposure well, but they may not address tobacco smoking's complex behaviour. Smoking initiation, addiction, and cessation require a more holistic approach that may involve Individual Change and Community Development. Health protection interventions often depend on strict enforcement, which can be difficult in some cases.

Ethics are also important. Balancing public health and individual freedoms can be difficult, resulting in conflicts between social norms and personal choices. Striking this balance requires caution and ongoing intervention evaluation.

Main Analysis: Individual Change

Principles and Definition

Public health individual change involves intentionally changing personal behaviours and choices to improve health outcomes (Parascandola and Xiao, 2019). This concept recognises that individual actions have a major impact on well-being and that behaviour modification can help address complex health issues like tobacco smoking.

Public health individual change principles empower people to make informed decisions that promote healthier lifestyles. This approach respects individual autonomy, recognising that people can shape their health paths. Public health practitioners provide accurate information, motivation, and accessible resources to encourage healthy behaviour changes.

The principles of individual change recognise that everyone's health journey is different. This approach promotes personal ownership and responsibility to create a supportive environment that empowers people to manage their health (Vanker et al., 2017). It recognises that sustained behaviour change requires more than knowledge—it requires addressing psychological, cultural, and social decision-making factors.

The principles of individual change emphasise holistic support for health issues like tobacco smoking. This includes communicating the health risks of smoking and providing ways to manage cravings, stress, and build healthier habits. Empowering people to make healthy choices promotes a culture of health that goes beyond tobacco cessation and includes healthier lifestyles.

Individual Change Framework

Figure 3: Individual Change Framework (Source: Khan et al., 2021)

Alignment with Tannahill Model

Individual change strongly aligns with the Tannahill Model's health improvement component. This model emphasises health behaviour improvement through education, motivation, and proactive decision-making (Tannahill, 1985). The Tannahill Model's focus on knowledge and skills matches individual change principles. This empowerment helps people live healthier, improving their health.

The individual change approach emphasises education and motivation for healthier behaviours. Individuals can make informed decisions by understanding the consequences of certain behaviours. Motivation also promotes long-term change. Both individual change principles and the Tannahill Model's health improvement component emphasise education and motivation.

 

Read Our Samples

Role Of Nurses In Health Promotion Student Nurse Reflection
CHD Impact On Public Health Care Skills For Pressure Ulcer Patients
Clinical Reasoning Cycle Assessment Guide Care Skills For Parkinsons Disease

Ethical Dilemmas

Public health practitioners implementing individual change interventions face ethical dilemmas. Promoting behaviour change while respecting personal autonomy is difficult. Interventions empower people to adopt healthier habits, but they must respect their right to make health decisions (Henningfield et al., 2018). Customised interventions that consider preferences, values, and change readiness are needed to reach this equilibrium.

Another important ethical issue is cultural sensitivity. Interventions that ignore cultural differences may stigmatise or alienate certain groups. Culturally appropriate interventions must respect diverse viewpoints and practises.

Practitioners must also avoid victim-blaming. Placing sole responsibility for behaviour change on individuals can ignore systemic causes like tobacco smoking (Rutter et al., 2017). Interventions should address social determinants of health because socioeconomic status, education, and environment affect behaviour change.

Case Study

The 2001 Australian Quitline smoking cessation programme shows how individual change interventions can help smokers quit. This programme shows how personalised approaches can change behaviour, highlighting the potential of tailored interventions to combat tobacco smoking.

The Quitline programme provides a wide range of resources to help smokers quit. The heart of the programme is a support line staffed by ex-smokers who can give guidance and encouragement to callers (Khan et al., 2021). The project also offers online access to evidence-based information, coping methods, and individualised programmes to help people give up smoking.

The strength of the programme lies in the fact that it takes a holistic approach to helping people quit smoking. Recognising that people have different requirements and difficulties, it covers a wide range of topics related to cigarette cessation (Thomas et al., 2019). The intervention equips people with everything they need to successfully kick the habit, from setting achievable objectives to building resilience in the face of nicotine addiction.

The tailored nature of the programme fosters positive change in behaviour that may last. Each participant's journey is unique, so support and evidence-based strategies are tailored. This customised approach increases the likelihood of behaviour change and shows a strong commitment to treating tobacco addiction's psychological, emotional, and physiological aspects.

Suitability of Individual Change

The Quitline programme and other individual change strategies are effective at reducing tobacco use. The tailored approach acknowledges the varied motivations and challenges smokers face for quitting. These interventions recognise each participant's uniqueness by providing personalised support and tools. The Tannahill Model's health improvement component emphasises education and motivation to promote informed decision-making and behaviour change.

Individual change interventions may also change behaviour permanently. These strategies boost intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy to sustain tobacco abstinence. The Quitline's personalised approach empowers health decision-making.

However, individual change strategies have limitations. They may ignore social and environmental factors that cause smoking and addiction. Socioeconomic inequality, tobacco product access, and tobacco industry marketing can perpetuate smoking.

Individual change interventions also depend on readiness and resources. Some may not want to quit, limiting the immediate impact of such interventions. Stress, peer influence, and social isolation can also hinder behaviour change.

Main Analysis: Community Development

Definition and Principles

Public health community development involves collective action and empowerment to improve community well-being (West, 2017). This approach recognises that health is a shared endeavour deeply ingrained in community social fabric. Public health community development emphasises inclusivity, equity, participatory engagement, and social determinants of health. This approach empowers communities to identify their health needs, participate in decision-making, and implement sustainable solutions.

The heart of community development is its assets and strengths. This approach emphasises building on resources and capacities rather than deficits. It recognises that communities have unique insights, cultural knowledge, and skills to effect change (Bala et al., 2017). Community development empowers people to own their health and change the world by using these strengths.

Community development framework
 
Figure 4: Community Development Framework (Source: Kostygina et al., 2020)

Alignment with Tannahill Model

Health promotion and community development complement the Tannahill Model. The health promotion component promotes supportive environments that enable healthy choices (Tannahill, 1985). Community development emphasises community participation in shaping their environments and well-being. Empowerment, education, and active engagement promote health in both concepts.

Community development extends Tannahill Model health promotion beyond individuals. By involving communities in decision-making, fostering social connections, and addressing structural health factors, it emphasises collective action and systemic change (Thompson et al., 2019). Community development supports the Tannahill Model's holistic health promotion by fostering community growth.

Ethical Dilemmas

Community development interventions present public health practitioners with ethical dilemmas. A key challenge is balancing community autonomy and health improvements. Recognising and honouring diverse cultural perspectives and community values while advocating for health is complicated (Krist et al., 2021). Disregarding community goals may cause disengagement or resistance.

Gentrification and displacement raise ethical issues. Despite good intentions, development projects may disrupt communities or worsen health disparities. Practitioners must build genuine partnerships, listen to community voices, and tailor interventions to local needs to overcome these challenges.

Community power dynamics can also affect intervention success. Public health professionals must include marginalised groups in decision-making. Fair participation is necessary for ethical community development.

Case Study

The US Truth Initiative campaign shows how community development interventions can reduce tobacco use. A non-profit dedicated to preventing youth and young adult tobacco use launched this initiative in 1999 (Farrelly et al., 2017). The campaign uses a community-centered approach to engage youth in tobacco-free advocacy and grassroots tobacco industry marketing resistance.

The campaign's success comes from empowering communities to manage their health (Kostygina et al., 2020). Youth feel empowered and activist by learning about tobacco companies' manipulative tactics. Participants raise awareness and mobilise peers and communities to fight tobacco marketing. The initiative promotes community development through collaboration, learning, and tobacco prevention.

Suitability of Community Development

Community development methods, like the Truth Initiative case study, can help combat tobacco smoking. These interventions can change behaviour by encouraging ownership and participation. Community-driven tobacco use campaigns can change society because they are more culturally relevant.

Collaborative community development interventions consider diverse perspectives and experiences, resulting in more comprehensive strategies (Fanshawe et al., 2017). Participation from diverse community members improves implementation and sustainability.
Community development methods have drawbacks. Scaling community-driven efforts takes time and resources. The impact may also depend on community engagement and influential stakeholders.

Community development interventions may not meet the immediate needs of tobacco addicts. Individualised support and cessation resources beyond community campaigns are often needed to quit smoking.

Synthesis

Comparative Analysis 

A comparison of health protection, individual change, and community development shows strengths and weaknesses in addressing tobacco smoking.

Health protection is strongest when it can enact policies and regulations that reduce tobacco smoking widely (Yazdi Feyzabadi et al., 2018). Smoke-free laws, advertising restrictions, and taxation have reduced smoking rates. Health protection interventions may struggle to enforce and comply and may not address individual or social factors that cause smoking.

Individual change strategies promote informed decision-making and personal autonomy by helping people make healthier choices (Lancaster and Stead, 2017). Quitting smoking is successful with tailored interventions like smoking cessation programmes. Individual change approaches may overlook socioeconomic disparities and tobacco industry marketing, which affect behaviour.

Community development promotes health promotion ownership through collective action and local engagement. Community-driven anti-smoking campaigns recognise social media and cultural relevance. However, resource constraints and community engagement levels may limit community development interventions.

Balance of Practise Domains

The practise domains of public health form a dynamic ecosystem that can address complex issues like tobacco smoking (Oates et al., 2020). A balanced and synergistic use of health protection, individual change, and community development is best. Each domain is unique, but harmonious integration allows a holistic and nuanced response to the complex tobacco smoking challenge.

Health protection policies provide a foundation for individuals and communities to thrive by taking a balanced approach. Individual change interventions help smokers quit by addressing addiction and behaviour modification (Peres et al., 2019). Community development strategies increase impact by fostering community cohesion and local engagement, turning health protection policies and individual intentions into sustainable collective efforts.

Health, individual change, and community development work together in a comprehensive strategy. Health protection policies set the tone, individual change interventions help people change, and community development strategies unite communities. This balanced integration recognises that tobacco smoking is a complex interaction of personal choices, community norms, and systemic influences.

Balanced use of practise domains is essential for public health practitioners fighting tobacco smoking. This approach recognises that health protection, individual change, and community development work best together to create a strong and resilient framework for tobacco smoking prevention.

Changing Practice Domains

The realisation that no single public health practise domain can solve all problems is changing practise domains. Individual behaviour, community norms, and societal factors affect the tobacco smoking challenge. Interdisciplinary approaches that bridge domains are needed to address this complexity.

Health protection policies increasingly use behavioural insights to improve compliance. Combining cigarette packaging health warnings with cessation resources reinforces individual change and integrates health protection (Boderie et al., 2021). Community development interventions that involve communities in policy design boost community voices and health protection.

Multilevel interventions are also important in the changing landscape. Individual, community, and societal actions are needed to combat tobacco smoking. Individual change strategies help smokers quit, but community development interventions provide social support (Krist et al., 2021). Health protection policies shield vulnerable populations from tobacco industry exploitation.

Suitability and Conclusion 

Most Suitable Domain

When tackling tobacco smoking, the best approach combines health protection, individual change, and community development. Each of these practise domains has unique strengths, and their combined use provides a comprehensive solution that effectively addresses tobacco smoking's complexities.

Health protection is essential to encouraging healthy lifestyles. Tobacco sales, marketing, and smoke-free policies set the stage for tobacco reduction (Green et al., 2020).

Health protection alone may not address smoking's psychological and personal aspects.

The individual's journey to quit smoking bridges this gap in individual change interventions. These interventions help people overcome addiction and change their lifestyles by providing customised support, counselling, and cessation programmes (Matkin et al., 2019). However, individual change strategies may overlook community and societal factors that perpetuate smoking.

Community development strategies address this context by actively engaging communities in behaviour change. These strategies allow communities to design culturally appropriate interventions, fostering ownership and shared responsibility. Community development may not have the regulatory power to stop tobacco industry tactics.

Also Read - Psychology Assignment Help

Holistic Interventionism Challenges

Integrating holistic interventionism is difficult, emphasising the need for collaboration. Integrating health protection, individual change, and community development requires breaking down disciplinary boundaries and building partnerships among diverse stakeholders. Resource allocation, messaging consistency, and cross-domain collaboration are difficult challenges.

Understanding cultural contexts, social dynamics, and community priorities is essential for authentic community engagement. An all-encompassing approach is insufficient. Culturally resonant and long-term interventions require collaboration between local leaders, grassroots organisations, and community members.

Appropriate Public Health Practice

In conclusion, the tobacco smoking challenge is complex and requires a holistic approach that integrates health protection, individual change, and community development. This multidimensional framework recognises that smoking is a complex interaction of personal choices, societal norms, and industry influences.

Synergizing these practise domains is the only way the public health community can address all tobacco smoking factors.

The dynamic tobacco smoking challenge emphasises the importance of this comprehensive approach. Social structures, cultural beliefs, and economic disparities affect it beyond individual choices (Prochaska et al., 2017). Creating a smoke-free society requires changing environments, social norms, and empowering individuals and communities to take charge of their health.

Integrating health protection, individual change, and community development represents the evolution of practise domains in public health. Public health must adopt holistic interventionism because no single domain can solve everything. The public health community can lead the way towards a tobacco-free future and set a precedent for addressing other complex health issues by promoting collaboration, interdisciplinary approaches, and cross-domain strengths.

References

Bala, M.M., Strzeszynski, L. and Topor‐Madry, R. (2017) Mass media interventions for smoking cessation in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).
Boderie, N.W., Mölenberg, F.J., Sheikh, A., Bramer, W.M., Burdorf, A., van Lenthe, F.J. and Been, J.V. (2021) Assessing public support for extending smoke-free policies beyond enclosed public places and workplaces: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open, 11(2), p.e040167.
Conner, M. and Norman, P. (2017) Health behaviour: Current issues and challenges. Psychology & health, 32(8), pp.895-906.
Fanshawe, T.R., Halliwell, W., Lindson, N., Aveyard, P., Livingstone‐Banks, J. and Hartmann‐Boyce, J. (2017) Tobacco cessation interventions for young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).
Farrelly, M.C., Duke, J.C., Nonnemaker, J., MacMonegle, A.J., Alexander, T.N., Zhao, X., Delahanty, J.C., Rao, P. and Allen, J.A. (2017) Association between The Real Cost media campaign and smoking initiation among youths—United States, 2014–2016. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 66(2), p.47.
Green, E.C., Murphy, E.M. and Gryboski, K. (2020) The health belief model. The Wiley encyclopedia of health psychology, pp.211-214.
Henningfield, J.E., Michaelides, T. and Sussman, S. (2018) Developing treatment for tobacco addicted youth-issues and challenges. Nicotine Addiction Among Adolescents, pp.5-26.
Khan, A., Green, K., Khandaker, G., Lawler, S. and Gartner, C. (2021) How can a coordinated regional smoking cessation initiative be developed and implemented? A programme logic model to evaluate the ‘10,000 Lives’ health promotion initiative in Central Queensland, Australia. BMJ open, 11(3), p.e044649.
Kostygina, G., Tran, H., Binns, S., Szczypka, G., Emery, S., Vallone, D. and Hair, E. (2020) Boosting health campaign reach and engagement through use of social media influencers and memes. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), p.2056305120912475.
Krist, A.H., Davidson, K.W., Mangione, C.M., Barry, M.J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A.B., Donahue, K., Doubeni, C.A., Epling, J.W., Kubik, M. and Ogedegbe, G. (2021) Interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama, 325(3), pp.265-279.
Lancaster, T. and Stead, L.F. (2017) Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (3).
Li, S., Keogan, S. and Clancy, L. (2020) Does smoke-free legislation work for teens too? A logistic regression analysis of smoking prevalence and gender among 16 years old in Ireland, using the 1995–2015 ESPAD school surveys. BMJ open, 10(8), p.e032630.
Matkin, W., Ordóñez‐Mena, J.M. and Hartmann‐Boyce, J. (2019) Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (5).
Meghji, J., Mortimer, K., Agusti, A., Allwood, B.W., Asher, I., Bateman, E.D., Bissell, K., Bolton, C.E., Bush, A., Celli, B. and Chiang, C.Y. (2021) Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions. The Lancet, 397(10277), pp.928-940.
Oates, G.R., Harris, W.T., Gutierrez, H.H., Mims, C., Rutland, S.B., Ott, C., Niranjan, S.J., Scarinci, I.C. and Walley, S.C. (2020) Tobacco smoke exposure in pediatric cystic fibrosis: a qualitative study of clinician and caregiver perspectives on smoking cessation. Pediatric pulmonology, 55(9), pp.2330-2340.
Parascandola, M. and Xiao, L. (2019) Tobacco and the lung cancer epidemic in China. Translational lung cancer research, 8(Suppl 1), p.S21.
Peres, M.A., Macpherson, L.M., Weyant, R.J., Daly, B., Venturelli, R., Mathur, M.R., Listl, S., Celeste, R.K., Guarnizo-Herreño, C.C., Kearns, C. and Benzian, H. (2019) Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. The Lancet, 394(10194), pp.249-260.
Prochaska, J.J., Das, S. and Young-Wolff, K.C. (2017) Smoking, mental illness, and public health. Annual review of public health, 38, pp.165-185.
Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D.T., Greaves, F., Harper, L., Hawe, P., Moore, L. and Petticrew, M. (2017) The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The lancet, 390(10112), pp.2602-2604.
Tannahill, A. (1985) What is health promotion?. Health education journal, 44(4), pp.167-168.
Thomas, D., Farrell, M., McRobbie, H., Tutka, P., Petrie, D., West, R., Siahpush, M., Gartner, C., Walker, N., Mendelsohn, C.P. and Hall, W. (2019) The effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of cytisine versus varenicline for smoking cessation in an Australian population: a study protocol for a randomized controlled non‐inferiority trial. Addiction, 114(5), pp.923-933.
Thompson, B., Wallack, L., Lichtenstein, E. and Pechacek, T. (2019) Principles of community organization and partnership for smoking cessation in the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT). In Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (pp. 187-203). Routledge.
UICC (2023) Tobacco control. Available at: https://www.uicc.org/what-we-do/areas-focus/tobacco-control#:~:text=Tobacco%20kills%208%20million%20people,of%20the%20world’s%20smokers%20live  (Accessed: 27 August 2023). 
Vanker, A., Gie, R.P. and Zar, H.J. (2017) The association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and childhood respiratory disease: a review. Expert review of respiratory medicine, 11(8), pp.661-673.
West, R. (2017) Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & health, 32(8), pp.1018-1036.
World Health Organization (2023) Tobacco. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco#:~:text=The%20tobacco%20epidemic%20is%20one,%2Dhand%20smoke%20(1)  (Accessed: 27 August 2023). 
Yazdi Feyzabadi, V., Seyfaddini, R., Ghandi, M. and Mehrolhasani, M.H. (2018) The world health organization's definition of health: a short review of critiques and necessity of a shifting paradigm. Iranian journal of Epidemiology, 13, pp.155-165.

Chat on WhatsApp
Chat
Call Now
Chat on WhatsApp
Call Now


Best Universities In Australia

Best In Countries

Upload your requirements and see your grades improving.

10K+ Satisfied Students. Order Now

Disclaimer: The reference papers given by DigiAssignmentHelp.com serve as model papers for students and are not to be presented as it is. These papers are intended to be used for reference & research purposes only.
Copyright © 2022 DigiAssignmentHelp.com. All rights reserved.

100% Secure Payment

paypal