Background Little is known about smoking cessation among gender minority populations compared to cis-gender individuals (whose gender matches their sex assigned at birth). We examined differences between smokers from gender minority populations, cis-women, and cis-men in heaviness of smoking, quit intentions, use of cessation assistance, quit attempts (ever tried and number), and triggers for thinking about quitting. Methods We used cross-sectional data from the 2020 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey. Among smoking respondents, we distinguished (1) cis-women (female sex, identified as women, and having feminine gender roles; n=670), (2) cis-men (male sex, identified as men, and having masculine gender roles; n=897), and (3) gender minorities (individuals who were intersex, who identified as non-binary, genderqueer, had a sex/gender identity not listed, whose gender roles were not feminine or masculine, or whose gender identity and/or roles were not congruent with sex assigned at birth; n=220). Results Although gender minorities did not differ from cis-women and cis-men in heaviness of smoking, plans to quit smoking, and quit attempts, they were significantly more likely to use cessation assistance (20% in the past six months) than cis-women (12%) and cis-men (9%). Gender minorities were also significantly more likely to report several triggers for thinking about quitting smoking, e.g. quit advice from a doctor, an anti-smoking message/campaign, and the availability of a telephone helpline. Conclusion Despite equal levels of quit attempts and heaviness of smoking, gender minority smokers make more use of smoking assistance, and respond stronger to triggers for thinking about quitting smoking. Implications Smoking cessation counsellors should be sensitive to the stressors that individuals from any minority population face, such as stigmatization, discrimination, and loneliness, and should educate their smoking clients on effective coping mechanisms to prevent relapse into smoking after they experience these stressors. Developing tailored smoking cessation programs or campaigns specifically for gender minority populations can also be useful. Based on the results of our subgroup analyses, programs or campaigns for younger gender minority smokers could focus on the availability of telephone helplines and on how friends and family think about their smoking behavior.

The Netherlands plans to ban tobacco sales in supermarkets in 2024. In a comprehensive policy evaluation, we aim to examine: 1) the impact of the policy on the number and types of tobacco outlets, 2) the impact on attitudes and behaviors of smoking adults and non-smoking youth, and 3) the influence of the tobacco industry on the policy process and the retail environment. In addition, our study focusses on differential effects in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where both smoking rates and tobacco outlet density are typically highest. This study brings together economic, psychological, and journalistic research methods. We investigate the impact of the new legislation on the number and type of tobacco outlets, and on the number of smokers by using routinely collected population monitoring data. We examine the impact of the legislation on smoking susceptibility of non-smoking youth and on impulse tobacco purchases by smoking adults with yearly quantitative surveys and with qualitative interviews and discussion sessions. We describe whether these impacts differ for disadvantaged versus non-disadvantaged neighborhoods. We investigate what strategies the tobacco industry uses to influence the new legislation, policy processes, and the tobacco retail environment by performing a journalistic investigation, by means of documents obtained by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, (possibly) leaked documents from insider meetings, and interviews with insiders. The methods of our evaluation can be used as a model for other comprehensive public policy evaluations. REGISTRATION Clinical Trials ID NCT05554120, Protocol ID KWF140282021-2. ABBREVIATIONS FOIA: Freedom of Information Act. SES-WOA: socioeconomic scores of private households. MCID: minimal clinically important difference.

Articles reporting research may be full length or brief reports. These should report original research findings within the journal's scope. Papers should generally be a maximum of 4000 words in length, excluding tables, references, and abstract and key points of the article, whilst it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 30. Review PapersComprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope. There are two types of review papers:-systematic review papers: respond to a specific research question, accrue from criterion-based selection of sources, include a quantitative synthesis and a statistical method (meta-analysis), and should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity should be noted in methods section. -narrative review papers: the research question may be broad, and the scope of this review is to discuss a specific topic and keep the readers up-to-date about it. This type of review does not necessarily include a methodological approach and its synthesis is usually qualitative. Narrative reviews should include in a developments section, with details regarding data sources used, keywords applied, time restrictions and study types selected. Developments should be based on actual review articles. All review papers should be generally less than 6000 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures and references. References should not exceed 50. Conclusion of the reviews should be specific and stem from the findings. Short ReportsBrief reports of data from original research. Short reports are shorter versions of original articles, may include one table or figure, should not exceed 1500 words, and it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 15. Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.

Articles reporting research may be full length or brief reports. These should report original research findings within the journal's scope. Papers should generally be a maximum of 4000 words in length, excluding tables, references, and abstract and key points of the article, whilst it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 30. Review PapersComprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope. There are two types of review papers:-systematic review papers: respond to a specific research question, accrue from criterion-based selection of sources, include a quantitative synthesis and a statistical method (meta-analysis), and should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity should be noted in methods section. -narrative review papers: the research question may be broad, and the scope of this review is to discuss a specific topic and keep the readers up-to-date about it. This type of review does not necessarily include a methodological approach and its synthesis is usually qualitative. Narrative reviews should include in a developments section, with details regarding data sources used, keywords applied, time restrictions and study types selected. Developments should be based on actual review articles. All review papers should be generally less than 6000 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures and references. References should not exceed 50. Conclusion of the reviews should be specific and stem from the findings. Short ReportsBrief reports of data from original research. Short reports are shorter versions of original articles, may include one table or figure, should not exceed 1500 words, and it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 15. Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.