ArticleHealth research policy and systems2007
Participation and argument in legislative debate on statewide smoking restrictions.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2017Article
- "Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States.International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- The debate over weight- versus price-based taxation of snuff in the United States' state legislatures.Journal of public health policy · 2014Article
- Legislators' beliefs on tobacco control policies in Nevada.Journal of community health · 2012Article
- Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation.BMC public health · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this paper we review the relationship between participation in legislative hearings, the use of ideological arguments, and the strength of public health legislation using a theoretical construct proposed by E. E. Schattschneider in 1960. Schattschneider argued that the breadth and types of participation in a political discussion could change political outcomes.
methodsWe test Schattschneider's argument empirically by reviewing the efforts of six states to pass Clean Indoor Air Acts by coding testimony given before legislators, comparing these findings to the different characteristics of each state's political process and the ultimate strength of each state's legislation.
resultsWe find that although greater participation is associated with stronger legislation, there is no clear relationship between the use and type of ideological arguments and eventual outcomes.
conclusionThese findings offer validation of a long-standing theory about the importance of political participation, and suggest strategies for public health advocates seeking to establish new legislation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.