Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21168248›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2011

Effect of the Arizona tobacco control program on cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures.

James Lightwood, Stanton Glantz

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mass media interventions for smoking cessation in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

James LightwoodUniversity of California, School of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. lightwoodj@pharmacy.ucsf.edu
Stanton Glantz
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

TOBACCO ADVOCACY AT THE STATE LEVELR01CA061021 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 1994 to 2015
$7.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA-61021NCI NIH HHS R01 CA061021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research investigates the relationship between per capita tobacco control expenditures, cigarette consumption, and healthcare expenditures in the state of Arizona. Arizona's tobacco control program, which was established in 1994, concentrates on youth uptake of smoking and avoids public policy and commentary on the tobacco industry. We use a cointegrating time series analysis using aggregate data on healthcare and tobacco control expenditures, cigarette consumption and prices and other data. We find there is a strong association between per capita healthcare expenditure and per capita cigarette consumption. In the long run, a marginal increase in annual cigarette consumption of one pack per capita increases per capita healthcare expenditure by $19.5 (SE $5.45) in Arizona. A cumulative increase of $1.00 in the difference between control state and Arizona per capita tobacco control expenditures increases the difference in cigarette consumption by 0.190 (SE 0.0780) packs per capita. Between 1996 and 2004, Arizona's tobacco control program was associated with a cumulative reduction in cigarette consumption of 200 million packs (95% CI 39.0 million packs, 364 million packs) worth $500 million (95% CI: $99 million, $896 million) in pre-tax cigarette sales to the tobacco industry. The cumulative healthcare savings was $2.33 billion (95% CI $0.37 billion, $5.00 billion) and the cumulative reduction in cigarette. Arizona's tobacco control expenditures are associated with reduced cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures, amounting to about 10 times the cost of the program through 2004. This return on investment, while large, was less than the more aggressive California program, which did not limit its focus to youth and included tobacco industry denomalization messages.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionArizonaCaliforniaCost SavingsHealth ExpendituresHumansProgram EvaluationRegression AnalysisSmokingSmoking CessationState GovernmentTobacco Industry

Identifiers

PMID21168248
PMCPMC3603372
OpenAlexW1979063754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.