World No Tobacco Day 31 May 2018


Every year, on 31 May, WHO and partners mark World No Tobacco Day (WNTD), highlighting the health and other risks associated with tobacco use, and advocating for effective policies to reduce tobacco consumption.

The focus of World No Tobacco Day 2018 is “Tobacco and heart disease.” The campaign will increase awareness on the:

  • link between tobacco and heart and other cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including stroke, which combined are the world’s leading causes of death;
  • feasible actions and measures that key audiences, including governments and the public, can take to reduce the risks to heart health posed by tobacco.

World No Tobacco Day 2018 coincides with a range of global initiatives and opportunities aimed at addressing the tobacco epidemic and its impact of public health, particularly in causing the death and suffering of millions of people globally. These actions include the WHO-supported Global Hearts and RESOLVE initiatives, which aim to reduce cardiovascular disease deaths and improve care, and the third United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on the Prevention and Control of NCDs , being held in 2018.

How tobacco endangers the heart health of people worldwide

World No Tobacco Day 2018 will focus on the impact tobacco has on the cardiovascular health of people worldwide.

Tobacco use is an important risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease.

Despite the known harms of tobacco to heart health, and the availability of solutions to reduce related death and disease, knowledge among large sections of the public that tobacco is one of the leading causes of CVD is low.

Facts about tobacco, heart and other cardiovascular diseases

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) kill more people than any other cause of death worldwide, and tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure contribute to approximately 12% of all heart disease deaths. Tobacco use is the second leading cause of CVD, after high blood pressure.

The global tobacco epidemic kills more than 7 million people each year, of which close to 900 000 are non-smokers dying from breathing second-hand smoke. Nearly 80% of the more than 1 billion smokers worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of tobacco-related illness and death is heaviest.

The WHO MPOWER measures are in line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) and can be used by governments to reduce tobacco use and protect people from NCDs. These measures include:

  • Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies;
  • Protect people from exposure to tobacco smoke by creating completely smoke-free indoor public places, workplaces and public transport;
  • Offer help to quit tobacco (cost-covered, population-wide support, including brief advice by health care providers and national toll-free quit lines);
  • Warn about the dangers of tobacco by implementing plain/standardized packaging, and/or large graphic health warnings on all tobacco packages, and implementing effective anti-tobacco mass media campaigns that inform the public about the harms tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure.
  • Enforce comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and
  • Raise taxes on tobacco products and make them less affordable.

Goals of the World No Tobacco Day 2018 campaign

World No Tobacco Day 2018 aims to:

  • Highlight the links between the use of tobacco products and heart and other cardiovascular diseases.
  • Increase awareness within the broader public of the impact tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke have on cardiovascular health.
  • Provide opportunities for the public, governments and others to make commitments to promote heart health by protecting people from use of tobacco products.
  • Encourage countries to strengthen implementation of the proven MPOWER tobacco control measures contained in the WHO FCTC.




Cairns Consensus Statement on Rural Generalist Medicine

Improved health for rural communities through accessible, high quality healthcare.
Cairns Consensus Statement on Rural Generalist Medicine
The Health of Rural Communities and Rural Generalist Medicine
We resolve to strengthen health care systems in rural communities by promoting the practice of Rural Generalist Medicine. Our goal is to improve the health of people living in rural areas through access to effective, safe and affordable healthcare.
People living in rural communities typically suffer poorer health status than their urban counterparts. In spite of this , rural communities have less access to health care
. Individuals and families living in rural areas are often obliged to travel unreasonable distances to access essential health care, including lifesaving emergency care, maternity care and child health services. They may receive only fragmented care or periodic visiting clinics with a narrow focus . These inequities are compounded for Indigenous rural communities.
Rural communities comprise almost half the world’s population and a greater proportion again in low-income countries. Rural communities produce most of the world’s food and natural resources and are entitled to equitable access to safe, effective and affordable health care as close to home as possible.
The broader social and economic development of rural communities is promoted through the availability of quality local health care , of which Rural Generalist Medicine is an essential component.
We assert that rural communities requir a strong generalist approach to all health professional services and in particular, skilled doctors who can provide a broad scope of clinical care, working in concert with other members of the health care team. That tradition, the tradition of Rural Generalist Medicine, is under threat as a result of trends to medical sub-specialization in cities and a diminished role for generalist
doctors as a consequence. What do we mean by the term ‘Rural Generalist Medicine’
We define ‘Rural Generalist Medicine’ as the provision of a broad scope of medical care by a doctor in the rural context that encompasses the following :
• Comprehensive primary care for individuals, families and communities ;
• Hospital in -patient and /or related secondary medical care in the institutional, home or ambulatory setting ;
• Emergency care ;
•Extended and evolving service in one or more areas of focused cognitive and/or procedural practice as required to sustain needed health services locally among a network of colleagues;
• A population health approach that is relevant to the community;
• Working as part of a multi-professional and multi- disciplinary team of colleagues, both local and distant, to provide services within a ‘system of care’ that is
aligned and responsive to community needs.
The practice of Rural Generalist Medicine is unique in the combination of abilities and aptitude that is required of a doctor for a distinctly broad scope of practice in a rural context. Rural Generalist Medicine is a concept that is grounded in the needs of rural communities, not on professional ‘turf ’ nor professional craft-group identity or ambition .
We acknowledge and respect the fact that elements of the scope of Rural Generalist Medicine are shared across a number of professions and medical professional craft groups, including the care that is provided by those General Practitioners or Family Physicians (GPs/FPs) who are trained primarily in community-based primary care roles, Cairns Consensus: Nov, 2013.Hospitalists, emergency physicians, GPs/FPs with special interests as well as a range of consultant medical specialists. All these groups have their contribution to make Similarly, we recognise that there are still doctors around the world who work to a comparably broad scope of practice in the urban context and this is to be supported.
We assert that those doctors who are trained and credentialed to practise Rural Generalist Medicine have been, are and always will be an essential requirement for health service delivery in rural communities. Their services are also likely to be increasingly required in larger population centres. Why is Rural Generalist Medicine important?
We believe that Rural Generalist Medicine is an essential component of healthcare if
rural communities are to be assured of access to comprehensive primary care that is integrated with secondary and tertiary healthcare services. The strength of Rural Generalist Medicine is the ability to deliver quality, personalised and contextual care across the continuum of health services and from cradle to grave.
From a rural patient and community perspective, Rural Generalist Medicine has many specific advantages. These include: ready access to skilled, culturally competent and locally-informed practitioners; improved continuity-of-care and follow-up; a better patient experience through familiarity, trust, personal relationships and patient- centred care; stronger integration of visiting consultant specialist services and tele health;reduced healthcare costs; and less personal and economic disruption associated with transport to distant services.
Rural Generalist Medicine can be tailored to available resources and local healthcare
priorities of communities. For Indigenous communities and marginalised groups, skilled local doctors practising Rural Generalist Medicine as part of a team offers the best prospect of assuring effective medical care that is culturally competent and responsive to priority community needs.
From a health systems perspective, Rural Generalist Medicine has doctors applying
a full and evolving skill-set, thereby increasing professional satisfaction, productivity and rural retention. Stable models of team-based care are promoted and there is a reduced reliance on locums. This in turn supports establishment of a quality rural learning environment for students, doctors-in-training and others. Medico-legal risk and associated costs are reduced.
While there may be a sufficient overall supply of doctors in some countries, the
medical workforce is maldistributed, being concentrated in urban areas and overly subspecialised. In other areas and particularly low-income countries, these same
factors exacerbate overall medical workforce shortages and are compounded by medical migration.
We assert that simply training more doctors using conventional models in the hope that they might ‘trickle-out’ to rural communities is a failed strategy. Paradoxically, this approach may lead to further fragmentation and specialization of care, waste scarce healthcare resources, undermine the practice of Rural Generalist Medicine
and team-based models of care and thereby worsen inequities in healthcare for rural communities.
Around the world, health systems are
under pressure due to unsustainable growth in expenditures, ageing populations, an increasing burden of chronic non-communicable disease, unwarranted fragmentation and specialization of care, persistent health inequities and, in many countries, large gaps in medical, nursing and midwifery workforce. Rural Generalist Medicine– and clinical generalism more broadly -offers an important positive contribution to meeting these challenges. What action is required to advance Rural Generalist Medicine?
We identify the following as key actions in global efforts to meet the healthcare needs of rural communities by strengthen ing Rural Generalist Medicine: Cairns Consensus: Nov, 2013 Page 3 A. Recognition of Rural Generalist Medicine as distinct scope of medical practice
Within health care systems, Rural Generalist Medicine must be recognised and valued
as a distinct scope of medical practice that is essential for
effective rural healthcare. Doctors who are trained and supported to practise Rural Generalist Medicine represent a key component of workforce in a contemporary, technology-enabled and team-based approach to meeting
rural healthcare needs.
Along with recognition, Rural Generalist Medicine must be enabled
through the
following actions
: appropriate
systems of clinical
governance (including
privileging and credentialing);
(models and levels)
; career
relevant and accessible continuing professional
; investment in local health facilities and infrastructure
; provision of
family supports
and living conditions
; investment
in health services and health
systems leadership and in health workforce planning
and investment
B. Training pathways
Rural Generalist Medicine
An active pathway of recruitment to
and training for a distinct
career in
is required.
pathway must produce generalist doctors
are certified to deliver th
e full scope of service for Rural Generalist Medicine
. The
pathway to Rural Generalist Medicine is a ‘pip
eline’ that begins prior to medical school
and extends through postgraduate trai
ning to lifelong learning
must serve to
attract and enthuse people to a Rural Generalist
Medicine career
, particularly
young people f
rom rural areas as well as the cities
l students and junior doctors
. Training
s should incorporate best
in strategies
that have been shown to
produce and retain
a generalist
. This includes basing training for Rural Generalist Medicine in rural areas
with rotations to larger centres only as training req
uirements dictate.
Curricula in undergraduate medical education must include strong
generalist content
of doctors practising Rural Generalist Medicine
teachers and preceptors
scope of Rural Generalist Medicine
have been developed by some agencies and
be considered as a reference point
pment and strengthening
of post
graduate training elsewhere.
pathways to training in Rural Gene
st Medicine should
clear and available
at an early stage of medical training, whilst allowing for other
s to take up training at a
later stage
. Training structures should
allow for
flexible entry points and
training pathways whilst assuring
outcomes at completion
. Trainees
on their journey and allow
ance must be made for the possibility
of a graceful
C. Research agenda
to advance Rural Generalist Medicine
use of healthcare
and Rural Generalist Medicine
There is good
evidence that where populations have access to primary care and
generalist doctors, healthcare
systems produce better health outcomes at a lesser
medical care predominates. There is also
emerging eviden
ce for
the cost
of generalist models incorporated
into hospital-
based care
including in the
tertiary setting
particularly for patients
with chronic and
complex conditions
In order to build the evidence
to support rational
decisions, further study is required in areas such as: cost analysis and cost
analysis of alternative rural medical care models across a range of geographic
, community and institutional healthcare
interventions to retain
doctors in rural practice.
Cairns Consensus: Nov, 2013
Quality and safety
and Rural Generalist Medicine
There is good evidence of equivalent or better outcomes of medical
that is
provided by generalist doctors working in rural teams for a
number of areas, including
in provision of maternity services
and some surgical procedures
Although often assumed, there is actually little evidence of superior
for most
interventions when provided by
. There are also
methodological flaws in many
In spite of this, a
concern for quality and safety
of care is often invoked when
decisions are made to restrict
scope of practice
or limit
location of
generalist doctors
. Similarly, perceptions of risk tend to
increase medico
-legal hazard.
All too often, the consequence of arbitrary
in cities to restrict the
scope of generalist practice is
reduced access by rural communities to
worse health outcomes and increased costs
to individuals and healthcare
In order to build the evidence base to strengthen healthcare in rural communities,
further study is required in areas such as: comparative studies on outcomes of care for different rural healthcare models that take the wider view of community access and context of care into account; comparative studies on effective models of care in discrete areas of service (e.g. : cancer care in rural areas); methodologies that move beyond simplistic audit of outcomes for particular interventions by individuals to outcomes of ‘systems of care ’ by teams; development of methodologies appropriate for evaluating complex systems; evaluation of different approaches to clinical
privileging and credentialing; and more critical study of volume of procedures and
outcomes in complex systems. Effective models of training and Rural Generalist Medicine
Features of medical education and training models that produce and retain a generalist rural medical workforce are increasingly well characterised . These include: targeting medical school admission to enrol rural- origin students; locating medical schools, campuses and post -graduate residency/training programs in regional locations; scholarships and bursaries with return of service obligations; and supporting an enhanced scope of practice in rural areas.
In order to build the evidence base to improve training for Rural Generalist Medicine, further study is required in areas such as: effectiveness of reform of undergraduate medical education (including socially accountable medical education); effective models of distance teaching and supervision; approaches to trainee selection that take into account the qualities and attributes that make for good rural practitioners ; training factors that enable, sustain, support and renew the practice of Rural Generalist Medicine.

Saving mother’s lives in rural Indonesia

Indonesia’s maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in south-east Asia. One East Java district has introduced a novel scheme to reduce those deaths.

The instruments used are not sterile and can lead to infection. The traditional healer, or dukun in Indonesian language or Bahasa, may not be able to deal with complications during labour, and by the time the mother gets to a local clinic it may be too late.


A dukun in Ngawi, East Java escorts a pregnant woman to a midwife

As a result, maternal mortality in Indonesia is high compared to most south-east Asian countries. In 2005, there were an estimated 262 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, compared with 39 per 100 000 in Malaysia and 6 per 100 000 in Singapore. Figures for Papua province from 2003 show even higher death rates: 396 per 100 000 live births.

The chief cause of maternal death in Indonesia is bleeding, followed by eclampsia, infection, and the complications of abortion and prolonged labour. Most of these deaths occur with births handled by traditional birth attendants rather than by medically trained health-care professionals.

Many families prefer to use a dukun because of traditional beliefs and because it is a cheaper option than using a trained midwife or going to hospital. In addition, these traditional birth attendants do household chores while mothers recover.

A scheme in Ngawi district in East Java has been initiated to try to ensure that a midwife or other trained birth attendant assists deliveries. Since 2006, dukun are given incentives of up to IDR 100 000 (US$ 12) for referring pregnant women to skilled birth attendants or community-based midwives. Funding comes from the local government budget.

Mbah Dinah, 60, a traditional healer in Ngawi, said, “We escort the pregnant woman to the community health centre during daylight. At night, we escort them to the midwife’s house.”

Additionally, the dukun receive a small sum of money when they assist a midwife. They are responsible for taking care of the cord and for bathing the newborn – supervised by the midwife – during the first week. The patient makes the payment; the amount depends on the length and type of services provided.

This way, dukun do not feel threatened by the arrival of a skilled birth attendant or community-based midwife in their area, but are happy to cooperate.

Sumarih, 24, is from the village of Majaseem and was nine months pregnant. She said she preferred to be examined and give birth aided by a midwife because she feels it is safer: “Devices that are used are sterile and midwives know how to handle any complications fast.” She was examined monthly in early pregnancy, and every week in the ninth month.


Traditional healers in Ngawi, East Java.

The scheme is proving successful. In 1984, a total of 86% of deliveries in Ngawi were aided by dukun, compared with fewer than 1% of deliveries today. Maternal deaths also have decreased: while 15 mothers died during delivery in 2002, this number dropped to 9 in 2006.

Awareness of the risks of delaying transfer of pregnant women to health centres also has grown as a result of the Program Gerakan Sayang Ibu (To Love Mother Programme in Bahasa). This information programme prompted many villages to provide transportation to transfer pregnant women either to community health centres or midwife delivery huts.

These initiatives are part of WHO’s Making Pregnancy Safer strategy, which was launched in 1999 with support from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank. Making Pregnancy Safer in Indonesia has three key principles: every delivery should be attended by a skilled birth attendant, every complication should be referred and managed appropriately, and all reproductive-age females should have access to contraceptives and post-abortion care. The Indonesian government has set a target to lower the maternal mortality rate to 125 per 100 000 live births by 2010.

The ministry of health initiated a midwifery education programme from 1989 to 1996 that trained more than 54 000 community-based midwives. Due to this programme, the proportion of deliveries assisted by a skilled attendant throughout Indonesia has risen from 25% in the early 1990s to 76% in 2006.

“We know what interventions are necessary in order to save pregnant women and newborns’ lives,” said Dr Monir Islam, Director of the Making Pregnancy Safer department at WHO. “The technical battle we have won; now the time has come to win the political battle for policy changes and increased investment.” ■

Cininta Analen, Ugaikagopa

And How Long Will You Be Staying, Doctor?

Heather Kovich, M.D. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:1307-1309April 6, 2017DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1613899
“Have I told you that I’m converting my garage into a workout room?” my friend asks. We are roaming the compound, our eyes fixed on the enormous, changing sky, oblivious to the tumbleweeds and empty plastic bottles skittering across our path.

“I’m hiring one of the maintenance guys to put down laminate floors. They’re even installing a window.”

The sun, down behind the Carrizo Mountains, streaks the sky in a saffron finale. Our dogs chase a curious prairie dog back into its den.

My mind turns over the implications of my friend’s home-renovation project, and I am filled with happy relief. We circle the hospital and return to our street. I can’t voice my feeling — she’d be disappointed that I’d doubted her commitment. Instead, I say, “That’s a lot of money to put into the hospital’s house, but it sounds awesome. I can’t wait to see it.”

This tension defines our lives as rural primary care physicians. Our patients put it the most bluntly: “And how long will you be staying, doctor?”

Over the past decade, efforts to increase access to health care in the United States have focused on insurance coverage. Meanwhile, a shortage of physicians is still the limiting factor in rural communities. Twenty percent of the U.S. population is rural, but only 11% of physicians practice in rural settings,1 even though residents of rural areas are older and have worse health indicators than their urban counterparts.2 Programs like the National Health Service Corps and state loan-repayment arrangements lure physicians to rural settings, but these physicians churn like lottery balls in a drum.3 The winning combination is a good doc who stays.

My patients asked me The Question at every visit for several years, and it irritated me every time. I would paste on a smile and answer with some version of “I’m not sure,” dodging the follow-up inquiries about what my husband does and whether he likes the area. Their questions implied what the Dartmouth Atlas made explicit: physician supply is driven by where physicians want to live,4 not by the health needs of the community. If we like it, maybe we’ll stay.

Before moving to rural New Mexico, I had been itinerant. Medical school on the East Coast. Residency on the West Coast. Locums abroad. So I expected to stay for 2 or 3 years — a tenure that seemed respectable to me. It was not the answer my patients wanted. I rationalized my defensiveness. Why did turnover matter if the care was good? My colleagues in big cities changed jobs after a few years, too.

As I started my practice, the patients seemed complicated: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cirrhosis, often all three. I was grateful they’d had a series of very good doctors. Their problems had been worked up, and the plans were clear. They’d had their cancer screenings. When it was indicated, they were on aspirin and statins. Hardly any were on long-term opiates.

In my first month I diagnosed a patient with hyperthyroidism. “Where’s the nearest endocrinologist?” I asked a veteran internist.

She was puzzled. “Why would you refer? Can’t you order the ablation?”

I learned to adjust my care to the geography. Some of my patients live hours from our hospital, on dirt roads become impassable in thunderstorms or snow. The nearest tertiary care hospital is another 3 hours away. We don’t refer often. If my patients do need a specialist, they go for a visit or two — I can always e-mail the rheumatologist or cardiologist if I have a question about adjusting their treatment.

I appreciate the continuity. I see my patients in our hospital and back again in clinic. I don’t need to request stacks of records from when they were septic, with diabetic ketoacidosis. I was in the ICU with them, ordering their antibiotics and insulin drip, explaining their condition to family members who are also my patients.

Caring for entire families helps me understand my community. I know that a patient is stressed because her son struggles with alcoholism: I’ve admitted him several times with pancreatitis. I know another patient can’t focus on her diabetes because she is still grieving her mother’s death: for years she wheeled her mother into my clinic for monthly appointments. When a teenager returns from a first year at college and asks for birth control, I remember her mother crying in my office months earlier, overwhelmed with pride and worry at having her first baby move so far away.

The patients weary of explaining all this — their tragedies, triumphs, and transformations — to a new face every few years, no matter how bright or kind that new face is. Seven years in, I understand why my patients would be disappointed if I left. As their doctor, I would be, too.

I’ve seen plenty of doctors cycle through. Smart, sincere, and hardworking, they came for a year or two or four — to pay back loans, to gain experience before fellowship, to have an adventure before settling down. Their service is no small thing: we depend on them. When I see Dr. C.’s copperplate handwriting in patient charts, I remember her warmth and meticulousness. When I use the clinic ultrasound, I see the reams of forms Dr. W. used to justify its purchase. I wistfully think of Drs. B. and D., a married couple of fun, razor-sharp clinicians who taught me a lot about medicine and parenting over 2 years. And I have a small, dusty bottle of sweet-tea–flavored vodka on my shelf from Dr. H. He left 6 years ago and gave it to someone else, who left and passed it along to me. Although the vodka is not to my taste, I like the reminder of Dr. H. He still recruits for us, sending us residents from his academic post.

Like my patients, I weary of explaining my history to new colleagues year after year. Also like my patients, I am immensely grateful for the physicians who have been here longer than I. We doctors are a close group. We rent housing from the hospital on its adjacent compound. We gather for potlucks and barbecues. Our children play together. I have knocked on a neighbor’s door at 10 p.m. to borrow a cup of sugar.

So, like my patients, I tire of saying goodbye. When doctors leave a remote practice, they go far away. Getting together with them involves airlines, time zones, and unsettled feelings. There is guilt for the person who left, insecurity for the one left behind. I feel it acutely: Are they really happier somewhere else? Should I leave too? It sounds nice to live in a neighborhood with Trader Joe’s, high-speed Internet, and baby-sitting grandparents.

Now, before I make friends, I gauge how long someone will stay. I learned this move from my patients, though I’m not yet as blunt. I remember how much “How long will be you staying?” irritated me. Instead, I observe: Do they plant a garden, spruce up the hospital’s house, adopt a stray dog? I hesitate to pull up a chair unless they’re going to lay down some laminate floors and stay awhile.

Patients still ask me The Question at least twice a day. “You’re not leaving soon, are you?” My smile comes naturally. I feel valued. I tell them honestly, I have no plan. I don’t tell them that I’m undecided about buying a new dining-room table. Mine is falling apart, but I’m torn between buying a nice one that fits this space and getting a cheap one. If I move, I might want something different in a new house.

I talk it over with my friend as we walk our dogs in the evening. Her eyes widen slightly, but she hesitates only for a second. “Buy a nice one for this space,” she says.

Disclosure forms provided by the author are available at

Source Information

From the Northern Navajo Medical Center, Shiprock, NM.

    1. 1 Rosenblatt RA, Chen FM, Lishner DM, Doescher MP. The future of family medicine and implications for rural primary care physician supply. Seattle: WWAMI Rural Health Center, August 2010 (
    1. 2 Institute of Medicine. Quality through collaboration: the future of rural health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005 (
    1. 3 Pathman DE, Konrad TR, Dann R, Koch G. Retention of primary care physicians in rural health professional shortage areas. Am J Public Health 2004;94:1723-1729
      CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
  1. 4 Goodman DC. Linking workforce policy to health care reform. Invited testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Finance, March 12, 2009 (