ArticleAmerican journal of public health2009
Competing initiatives: a new tobacco industry strategy to oppose statewide clean indoor air ballot measures.
Article in American journal of public health, 2009. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defeating JUUL's Effort to Rewrite San Francisco's E-Cigarette Regulations.American journal of public health · 2021Article
- The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Campaign Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016.Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2020Article
- When tobacco targets direct democracy.Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2014Article
- Political factors affecting the enactment of state-level clean indoor air laws.American journal of public health · 2014Article
- Enacting tobacco taxes by direct popular vote in the United States: lessons from 20 years of experience.Tobacco control · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To describe how the tobacco and gaming industries opposed clean indoor air voter initiatives in 2006, we analyzed media records and government and other publicly available documents and conducted interviews with knowledgeable individuals. In an attempt to avoid strict "smoke free" regulations pursued by health groups via voter initiatives in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, in 2006, the tobacco and gaming industries sponsored competing voter initiatives for alternative laws. Health groups succeeded in defeating the pro-tobacco competing initiatives because they were able to dispel confusion and create a head-to-head competition by associating each campaign with its respective backer and instructing voters to vote "no" on the pro-tobacco initiative in addition to voting "yes" on the health group initiative.
Indexed as
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.