Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20382647›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2010

The quarter that changed the world.

April Roeseler, David Burns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. School Staff Perspectives on Tobacco Prevention: Findings From a Statewide Educator Survey.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Racial/Ethnic Disparities Across Indicators of Cigarette Smoking in the Era of Increased Tobacco Control, 1992-2019.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)-Phase 2.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

April RoeselerCalifornia Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, PO Box 997377, MS 7206, Sacramento, CA 95899-7377, USA. april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov
David Burns

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe California Department of Public Health (CDPH), California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) is one of the longest-running comprehensive tobacco control programmes in the USA, resulting from a 1988 ballot initiative that added a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes and a proportional tax increase on other tobacco products. This programme used a social norm change approach to reduce tobacco use.

methodsThe operation, structure, evolution, programme dissemination and results are reviewed.

resultsThe sustained programme implementation has reduced adult per capita cigarette consumption by over 60% and adult smoking prevalence by 35%, from 22.7% in 1988 to 13.8% in 2007. From 1988 to 2004, lung and bronchus cancer rates in California declined at nearly four times the rate of decline seen in the rest of the USA and the programme is associated with an $86 billion savings in healthcare costs. Youth smoking rates among 12-17 years olds are the second lowest in the nation.

conclusionsThe social norm change approach is effective at reducing tobacco consumption, adult smoking and youth uptake. This approach resulted in declines in tobacco-related diseases and is associated with savings in healthcare expenditures. In considering CTCP's effectiveness, the takeaway message is that it should be viewed as a unified programme rather than a collection of independent interventions. The programme was designed and implemented as one where the parts complement and reinforce each other. Its effectiveness is dependent on its comprehensive strategy rather than any one part of the intervention.

Indexed as

Tobacco IndustryAdolescentAdultAdvertisingCaliforniaChildCultureHealth Care CostsHealth PromotionHumansLung NeoplasmsNicotianaPrevalenceProgram EvaluationPublic Health PracticeSmoking

Identifiers

PMID20382647
PMCPMC2976491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.