- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
M. J. Byron, J. E. Cohen, S. Frattaroli, J. Gittelsohn, D. H. Jernigan, Using the theory of normative social behavior to understand compliance with a smoke-free law in a middle-income country, Health Education Research, Volume 31, Issue 6, December 2016, Pages 738–748, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyw043
- Share Icon Share
Smoke-free laws, which ban smoking in public venues, can be effective in protecting public health, but it has been difficult to achieve compliance with these laws in low- and middle-income countries. This study was conducted to understand the social norms around public smoking and learn how to improve compliance in Bogor, the first Indonesian city to pass a comprehensive smoke-free law. Eleven stratified focus groups were conducted (n = 89). Data were analyzed using the theory of normative social behavior, which posits that the influence of descriptive norms (perceptions about what other people do) on behavior is moderated by injunctive norms (perceptions about what one is expected to do), outcome expectations and group identity. The findings showed that participants perceived smoking in public to be common for men (descriptive norm). Public smoking is acceptable except in places with air conditioning and around children or pregnant women (injunctive norms). Men smoke without penalty of social or legal sanctions (outcome expectations) and may feel affiliation with other smokers (group identity). Together, these factors support public smoking and inhibit compliance with the smoke-free law. Theory-based communication and policy remedies are suggested that may bolster compliance with Bogor’s smoke-free law given the current pro-smoking norms.
Introduction
Globally, secondhand smoke causes 603 000 deaths annually, representing 1.0% of all mortality [1]. Smoke-free laws, which ban smoking in public places, are an essential component of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy [2]. Smoke-free laws protect individuals from toxic smoke, and reduce smoking rates, youth smoking initiation and the social acceptability of smoking [3–5]. At least 43 countries and hundreds of smaller jurisdictions have already enacted smoke-free laws [6], and all 180 countries that are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control have committed to doing so [7]. In high-income countries where most smoke-free laws originated, compliance has generally been high and laws have been self-enforcing through social pressure [8, 9]. However, it has been harder to achieve compliance with smoke-free laws in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) [10, 11], which are now at the forefront of the tobacco epidemic. The cultural milieu in these countries, specifically their social norms, may require more attention (M. J. Byron, J. E. Cohen, S. Frattaroli, J. Gittelsohn, D. H. Jernigan., in preparation). Social norms are especially influential in public behaviors [12, 13].
In Indonesia, pro-smoking norms predominate and smoke-free laws are nascent. With a smoking prevalence of 67.4% among men and 4.5% among women, Indonesia is home to one of the largest populations of smokers in the world (61.4 million smokers) [26]. Additionally, 98 million children and non-smoking adults are exposed to secondhand smoke [27]. Most (92%) cigarettes smoked in Indonesia are kretek, clove cigarettes, which may be more toxic than tobacco-only cigarettes [28, 29]. Influential religious organizations have not been unified in opposing smoking [30]. At the national level, tobacco control is minimal, and a smoke-free law passed in 1999 has not been implemented [31]. The law covered only some types of venues (health facilities, religious places, schools and public transportation) and because it lacked implementation plans or penalties for non-compliance, it was rarely enforced [31].
Recently Indonesian cities have taken action. The first city to pass a comprehensive smoke-free law was Bogor, a city of 1 million located 37 miles south of Jakarta. Bogor’s smoke-free law took effect in May 2010 and banned smoking and tobacco advertising in most public places including hotels and restaurants, public markets and malls, places of worship, workplaces, schools, hospitals and on public transportation, with no exemptions or indoor designated smoking areas. The city law is more comprehensive than the 1999 national law and it has clear penalties for violations. An evaluation in February 2012 found that the law was working well in schools and hospitals, but compliance was only 56% in restaurants, 69% in malls and 64% in government buildings [32]. Bogor’s experience with its smoke-free law offers an opportunity to learn about changing smoke-free social norms in an LMIC. This article presents the first application of the TNSB to a smoke-free law. This is important for theoretical reasons in considering how large of a role norms play when a behavior is highly addictive [13] and important practically in learning possible ways to improve compliance with a smoke-free law by addressing the normative components. We analyze focus group and interview findings using the TNSB to understand the current social norms in Bogor and suggest ways to improve compliance with the law. Our aims are (i) to map findings about current public smoking norms in Bogor to the TNSB framework and (ii) to use the TNSB to develop theoretically grounded recommendations for increasing compliance with the smoke-free law.
Materials and methods
Data collection
We conducted 11 semi-structured focus groups with Bogor residents in July 2012, recruiting from a middle-class mall and a lower-class outdoor market, and holding the focus groups at nearby venues a few days later. The recruitment locations were chosen to get the perspective of the social classes that include the majority of Indonesians. To encourage participants to speak freely, the focus groups were stratified by age, gender and smoking status. This was done both because Indonesian culture has norms that younger adults should defer to the opinion of elders [33], and because discussion of smoking (especially of women smoking) and of confronting smokers may be sensitive topics between people of different gender and smoking statuses [34]. We trained local researchers for 2 days on recruitment and focus group facilitation. These facilitators conducted the groups in Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. They followed a guide developed by MJB and informed by a review of relevant literature to address the research aims and related topics. The guide includes questions about participants’ awareness of and opinions about the law as well as their perceptions about public smoking (descriptive norms), expectations/acceptability of smoking in public (injunctive norms), what happens if someone smokes in public (outcome expectations), and how the law may affect social interactions and identity (group identity) (Table I). Additionally, in a process of photo elicitation [35], participants were asked their opinion about the acceptability and legality of smoking in five example settings. Participants were given snacks and compensation (81 000 rupiah, about $8.67) for their time. In conjunction with this focus group data collection, interviews were conducted with 17 venue managers, 14 city officials, and 21 non-governmental organization and other leaders, chosen purposively to add mid-level and top-down perspectives on the law. The venue managers were a convenience sample from one of Bogor’s commercial centers. The officials and leaders were recruited by working through contacts at the health department and asking interviewees to recommend other key informants. Of the interviewees, 34 were male and 20 female. This article is based primarily on the findings from the focus groups, although relevant information from the interview transcripts was used to add additional perspective and enhance credibility by providing methodological triangulation. The study was approved by the City of Bogor and the institutional review boards of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.
Below are the questions used for the focus groups of Bogor residents. The order of the questions has been changed to group them by category. Questions not relevant to this project and some probes have been omitted to conserve space. |
Awareness of law |
|
Opinion about law |
|
Descriptive norms |
|
Injunctive norms |
|
Outcome expectations |
|
Group identity |
|
Recommendations |
|
Below are the questions used for the focus groups of Bogor residents. The order of the questions has been changed to group them by category. Questions not relevant to this project and some probes have been omitted to conserve space. |
Awareness of law |
|
Opinion about law |
|
Descriptive norms |
|
Injunctive norms |
|
Outcome expectations |
|
Group identity |
|
Recommendations |
|
Below are the questions used for the focus groups of Bogor residents. The order of the questions has been changed to group them by category. Questions not relevant to this project and some probes have been omitted to conserve space. |
Awareness of law |
|
Opinion about law |
|
Descriptive norms |
|
Injunctive norms |
|
Outcome expectations |
|
Group identity |
|
Recommendations |
|
Below are the questions used for the focus groups of Bogor residents. The order of the questions has been changed to group them by category. Questions not relevant to this project and some probes have been omitted to conserve space. |
Awareness of law |
|
Opinion about law |
|
Descriptive norms |
|
Injunctive norms |
|
Outcome expectations |
|
Group identity |
|
Recommendations |
|
Data analysis
Digital recordings were transcribed and translated into English by professional translators and checked by an independent second translator. The focus group transcripts were iteratively coded using ATLAS.ti 7.16 (ATLAS.ti GmbH, Berlin) in a process of thematic content analysis [36]. MJB developed the code book, beginning with high-level codes related to the research questions and the TNSB, and secondary codes designed to capture common themes and unique responses. Data credibility was improved by stakeholder triangulation, comparing the focus group findings with findings from the interviews. The interviews were reviewed for content relevant to the social norms of smoking in Bogor. Negative cases were sought out as contrasting perspectives [37]. Indonesian collaborators assisted with interpreting nuances of Indonesian language and culture.
Results
Of the 115 participants recruited for the 11 focus groups, 89 attended (Table II). Focus groups lasted an average of 126 min (range: 81–160). Interviews with leaders (n = 35) averaged 73 min (range: 27–151) and interviews with venue managers (n = 17) averaged 42 min (range: 13–67). The findings provide rich descriptions of current social norms around smoking and offer insight into why smoke-free compliance is low (Fig. 1).
Gender and smoking status . | Ages . | Recruitment venue . | No. recruited . | No. attended . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 10 | 9 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 12 | 8 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 5 |
Male smokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 7 |
Male nonsmokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 7 |
Female smokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 8 |
Female nonsmokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 9 | 7 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 8 |
Total | 115 | 89 |
Gender and smoking status . | Ages . | Recruitment venue . | No. recruited . | No. attended . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 10 | 9 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 12 | 8 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 5 |
Male smokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 7 |
Male nonsmokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 7 |
Female smokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 8 |
Female nonsmokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 9 | 7 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 8 |
Total | 115 | 89 |
Gender and smoking status . | Ages . | Recruitment venue . | No. recruited . | No. attended . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 10 | 9 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 12 | 8 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 5 |
Male smokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 7 |
Male nonsmokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 7 |
Female smokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 8 |
Female nonsmokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 9 | 7 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 8 |
Total | 115 | 89 |
Gender and smoking status . | Ages . | Recruitment venue . | No. recruited . | No. attended . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Male smokers | 18–25 | Mall | 10 | 9 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 12 | 8 |
Male smokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 5 |
Male smokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 7 |
Male nonsmokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 7 |
Female smokers | 18+ | Mall | 10 | 8 |
Female nonsmokers | 18–25 | Mall | 12 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 9 | 7 |
Female nonsmokers | 26+ | Mall | 10 | 10 |
Female nonsmokers | 18+ | Market | 10 | 8 |
Total | 115 | 89 |
Descriptive norm: public smoking is common for men but not women
Comments relating to what respondents perceive other people do in public were classified as descriptive norms. Focus group participants described smoking as part of the Indonesian everyday culture (kebudayaan) and longstanding tradition (tradisi):
[I]f we talk about the culture, it is difficult to eliminate the culture itself … [I]t is in our culture that it is a habit to smoke after eating, drinking coffee and smoking, drinking tea and smoking, and reading Koran and smoking … (Male Smoker, M-S)
Participants described smoking as very common in Bogor. A few participants estimated that 75–85% of men and 20–25% of women in Bogor smoke. The smoke-free law was said to have had some impact on public smoking by reducing smoking in schools, hospitals and, to a lesser extent, on public buses. However, the law was viewed as less successful in restaurants and malls. Participants said that noncompliance was common. Some participants reported, ‘it seems like there is no rule at all’ (Female Nonsmoker, F-NS), putting the blame for low compliance either on the public, ‘that’s the nature of Bogor people’ (M-S), or on the government, ‘it is useless to make a law when the government is not strict about it’ (M-S). Smoke-free signs were said to be commonly ignored:
Even if there is a no smoking sign but in the surroundings people are smoking, we will smoke also. Actually, like in this mall, it is a non-smoking area, right? On the second floor there is also a no smoking sign but the employees are still smoking, so like it or not, we follow them, smoking. (M-S)
Smokers said they know a location is suitable for smoking if they see other smokers present or they see cigarette butts or ashtrays. There was a common perception among residents and leaders that some public officials flout the smoke-free law.
Injunctive norm: it is acceptable for men to smoke in most public places
Comments about what participants believe they are expected to do in public were classified as injunctive norms. Participants described how men are welcome to smoke in public. As one male smoker explained, ‘in our environment people are all smokers so we don’t need to be shy, if we want to smoke, just smoke’. On the other hand, female smokers described being reticent to smoke in public, saying that doing so is bad for their image (jaim) and not pious (alim), and that a woman smoking alone is said to be a prostitute. Most female smokers said they would only smoke in public if they were with other smoking friends. However, one woman shared that she smokes ‘anywhere, anytime’.
There are specific circumstances in which smokers and nonsmokers agreed that public smoking is not acceptable, including around children or pregnant women or in air-conditioned rooms. This norm is sometimes socially enforced. A mother said that if she is on a public bus and someone is smoking, she confronts them:
I don’t want to feel uncomfortable. Whether they like it or not, I don’t care. I just tell them to stop smoking…Because I have my children with me. I don’t want them to be coughing. It will feel uncomfortable for us and our children. (F-NS)
However, most women said they do not confront smokers, either out of respect for their elders or fear of inciting an angry response. Instead women were more likely to cough or put their hijab (Muslim headscarf) over their face to indicate displeasure with smoke. Smokers expressed familiarity with these cues, and said they sometimes comply. One male smoker explained, ‘[When] someone coughs and covers his/her mouth, sometimes if I am still enjoying myself, I ignore it. But if I see young kids, I will put out the cigarette’. Notably, except for a few instances on public transportation, no participants reported asking people not to smoke because of the law; instead the motive was generally comfort (nyaman) or, less frequently, health (kesehatan). However, nonsmokers and some smokers said they were supportive of a smoke-free law. In the interviews with city officials, we learned that the city had put up banners to raise awareness and support for the law.
In response to the photos of five example venues, smokers described more places as acceptable for smoking than nonsmokers, although both groups thought it generally acceptable to smoke in the public venues where there was good air flow. In describing where smoking was acceptable, participants tended to talk about the people in the photographs or the people who might visit such a place (families, etc.). None of the participants cited the presence of a roof as a criterion although the presence of a roof is the only criterion used in the law.
Outcome expectations: smoking in public has numerous benefits and few costs
Smoking was associated with numerous benefits, such as reducing stress (stres) or boredom (kejenuhan), pacifying addiction (kecanduan) and providing inspiration (inspirasi). Smoking after a meal was described as a ‘must’; as one male smoker said, ‘if after a meal I don’t smoke, I feel uncomfortable’. Both male and female smokers described how smoking eases conversation with their friends, and young men described how smoking makes it easier for them to talk with young women.
Public smoking rarely carries costs from other members of the public, venue managers or law enforcement. Smokers explained that when nonsmokers express displeasure with smoking, the smoker can usually ignore them or move to a different part of the space without having to put out the cigarette. Venue managers rarely confront smokers. Some of the venue managers we interviewed were amenable to the smoke-free law, but only if it is enforced uniformly:
Actually, we are supportive of this regulation … but the thing is that they have to be serious. If one restaurant is asked to be smoke-free, then all of the restaurants have to be smoke-free also. Don’t be like, you asked this restaurant to be smoke-free, but the other restaurants no, because … it will influence our income.
Managers also said it was hard to enforce the law because many of their customers are from Jakarta and other areas outside Bogor and are unaware of the law.
Health and legal officials interviewed acknowledged the sparse enforcement and explained their bureaucratic limitation: the smoke-free law, as a local regulation, requires a judge to issue the fines. Therefore, the only time smokers are fined is during occasional (7–12 per year) heavily staffed inspection operations, resulting in 20–30 fines per event. Residents described these events as ‘raids’ (razia) and smokers who had seen one said they are now more careful where they smoke. Venue managers can also be fined, but only after three warning letters, and 2 years into the new law, no venue had been fined.
Group identity: smoking as a way to affiliate with other smokers
Smokers discussed how they smoke with other smokers, and implied smoking is a part of Indonesian manhood. A few men alluded to how men who do not smoke are sometimes made fun of as transvestites (banci). One explained the social pressure in his smoking initiation, ‘At first, I just followed my friends. If I didn’t smoke, I felt less than a man’. Another said that it would be especially difficult for men to comply with the smoke-free law because ‘most men are smokers so the encouragement to smoke is strong’ (M-S). In the groups of non-smoking women, there were also some comments about smoking and masculinity, such as talk about how advertising gives the impression that ‘when men smoke, they are more manly’. In the focus group of male nonsmokers, participants explained that they did not see smoking as a necessary part of being a man. As one said: ‘In my opinion, whether a man is a real gentleman or not is not defined by whether he is smoking or not. Even, in my opinion, a man is more a gentleman if he applies a healthy lifestyle’. Women who smoked expressed a social benefit of smoking with their friends.
Participants’ and advocates’ suggestions for improving implementation
Participants called for strict enforcement along with better public education/communication (sosialisasi) to improve implementation of the law. Some residents suggested that the law would be more fair and effective if there were indoor designated smoking areas. NGO and health leaders also asked for more enforcement, but said what mattered most was getting more commitment from the city government to take the law seriously, including rigorous enforcement in government offices.
Discussion
This is the first study to use the TNSB to analyze the norms around a smoke-free law. The TNSB indicates that compliance behavior can be improved by directly changing the descriptive norm or by leveraging the moderating constructs of injunctive norms, outcome expectations and/or group identity. The theory suggests that the moderators may also interact with each other and/or act as mediators between descriptive norms and behavior [38]. Here, based on our findings relating to each construct, we make the following theory-grounded recommendations for improving compliance in Bogor:
(1) Address signs of smoking as a source of descriptive norms
Smokers said they often smoke where other people smoke, suggesting a direct effect of descriptive norms on behavior. As public smoking is a quite visible behavior, it may be difficult to change people’s perceptions of public smoking without changing the actual frequency of public smoking. However, one approach that may be useful is to remove the evidence that smoking is happening by removing ashtrays and sweeping up cigarette butts. These aspects of the physical environment inform descriptive norms [39]. The smoke-free law should be strictly enforced among city employees to set a better example and thereby reduce the visibility of smoking and non-compliant role models. Also, the public may be overestimating the public smoking rate. Although city-level smoking prevalence is not available, the smoking rate in urban Indonesia is 62% among men and 2% among women [26], lower than the estimates of 75–85% and 20–25%, respectively, provided by the respondents. Research can further investigate public perceptions of the rates of smoking and specifically of smoking in public spaces and this information could inform a public education campaign to correct these misperceptions [40].
(2) Promote the injunctive norm of following the law
Generally, public smoking among men was said to be acceptable. Smoking is only considered inappropriate around children and pregnant women and in air-conditioned venues. The majority of Bogor’s restaurants and other public venues are not air-conditioned, but instead are cooled by large open windows. In describing which photographed settings are acceptable for smoking, participants focused on the people in the setting and the air flow. They did not use or know of the roof as the legal criterion. To change the current injunctive norm, communications could explain more clearly where the law prohibits smoking. Messaging could also work to stretch the already accepted non-smoking scenarios, for example conveying that exposing adults to toxic smoke is no more appropriate than exposing children to it. Future research can learn what local sayings and metaphors may be useful in communicating the harm of secondhand smoke. Injunctive norm messaging could be located in the places where people are likely to smoke, such as by putting table-top signs in restaurants. This approach is in line with research findings that increasing the salience of positive injunctive norms at the time of action increases the likelihood of the desired behavior [16]. Research also suggests that messaging about injunctive norms may be more likely to encourage desired behavior than messages about descriptive norms [41]. Per best practices [42], campaigns could also encourage the public to politely confront violators to increase the normalcy of these social enforcement actions.
(3) Change outcome expectations to include social and legal punishment
Currently a male smoker expects a positive mood and social benefits from smoking, with no negative repercussions. Three levels of possible punishment—from the public, venue managers and the law—are relevant and could be strengthened in Bogor. As noted, communications to the public should encourage social enforcement. Additionally, venues that allow indoor smoking should be rapidly issued warning letters and fined. This would provide a clear message to venue managers that they are responsible for enforcing the law on their properties. This is in line with best practices, which state that fining venues is more important than fining individual smokers [8]. The warnings and fines should be applied fairly across similar venues. Third, increasing the frequency and breadth of enforcement operations would make the threat of a fine more real. In Bogor, there are roughly 250 000 smokers, many of whom violate the smoke-free law daily, yet the current system fines only a few dozen smokers each month [43]. The combination of public social enforcement, manager-driven enforcement and threat of legal enforcement could have a powerful effect in changing individuals’ outcome expectations.
(4) Understand and possibly reframe the relationship between smoking and masculinity
Individuals in community-oriented cultures such as Indonesia’s may be especially affected by group identity [44]. Male public smoking facilitates inclusion among groups of friends who smoke, and may also be done to assert masculinity, emphasizing one’s inclusion in the societal group of Indonesian men who smoke. Anthropological research and advertising analysis in Indonesia confirms the relationship between smoking and masculinity [45–47]. In our focus groups, the role of smoking in masculinity, while mentioned, was not widely discussed, perhaps because it is obvious to the participants. Further research could explore how decisions about public smoking behavior are related to asserting masculinity and to feeling part of the group of Indonesian male smokers. Potentially the conceptual image of the ideal Indonesian man can be changed. A similar effort was well received in pilot research in another part of Indonesia when researchers rhetorically asked men whether their responsibility to women and children was a greater cultural value than their personal smoking pleasure [48]. Likewise, research could assess whether women who smoke in public do so to maintain affiliation not just with their smoking friends but also with all female smokers.
Limitations
Whether our findings about social norms in Bogor are transferable to other parts of Indonesia is uncertain, and similar studies could explore regional differences. However, our findings about the role of smoking in society are congruent with research in other Indonesian cities [45, 49]. Second, the use of translated data may have caused nuances of language and culture to be missed or misinterpreted. To minimize this, MJB communicated regularly with the facilitators and translators during the analysis phase about unclear phrasings and cultural references. The use of leader interviews for triangulation also helped reduce cultural misunderstandings. Finally, to date research on the relatively new TNSB (2005) has been descriptive and predictive, and has not shown the effectiveness of the TNSB as a planning tool for changing behavior, although work in this direction continues [50].
Implications and conclusion
The TNSB provides a framework for examining current norms around a smoke-free law and determining ways to increase compliance in settings where implementation has been slow to take hold. This approach may be especially valuable in the variety of cultures across LMIC. In countries where smoke-free laws first took hold, change was incremental and driven by local grassroots efforts [51, 52]. Now, parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control are implementing national smoke-free laws. Strategic communication campaigns may be needed to inform the public and gain their support amid this more abrupt change in norms. As the example of Bogor illustrates, the TNSB has potential for use in developing theory-based communication approaches and informing implementation efforts to accelerate the movement toward sustained, self-enforcing smoke-free norms.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data are available at HER online.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Bogor City Health Department, No Tobacco Community, and the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease for their logistical and advisory support during the fieldwork for this project. We thank our Indonesian research colleagues and research participants. We also appreciate Rajiv N. Rimal for his comments on an earlier draft.
Funding
Award from the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health with funding from the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References
No Tobacco Community. Fining actions summary (Rekapitulasi Kegiatan Tipiring). Bogor, Indonesia: No Tobacco Community, n.d.