Table 1.

Policy priority ranking

Intervention	Magnitude	Feasibility	Vulnerable populations	Evidence base	Costs	Score
Tax raises	Total population	Low effort, resistance from industry	Women, children, youth		For enforcement	12
	+++	++	+++	+++	+
Smoking ban in public places	Most of population	Difficult to enforce	Women, children, youth		For enforcement	11
	+++	+	+++	+++	+
Advertising ban	Population amenable to marketing	Low effort, resistance from industry	Women, youth		Low	10
	++	++	++	+	+++
Warning labels	Smokers amenable to risk communication	Low effort, resistance from industry	Women, youth		Low	9
	+	++	++	+	+++
Smoking cessation programs	Smokers willing to quit	Need to train professionals	Effects from secondhand smoke		Program costs	8
	++	+	+	+++	+

We developed the following criteria for prioritization of future tobacco control policies and programs: magnitude as estimated number of smokers and non-smokers affected; feasibility of policy change vis-a-vis expected political resistance or support from various stakeholders (such as parliament, ministries, administrations, scientific and professional organizations, non-governmental organizations, tobacco industry, etc.); expected impact on vulnerable populations such as youths or women; evidence base for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and projected costs associated with instating policies or implementing program in orders of magnitude.

The assigned scores, ranging from + (low effect, less desirable), ++ (medium effect), +++ (high effect, most desirable) for each equally weighed criterion, were summed up for each row to a total score.