Trial reportJournal of community health2014
Smoke-free coalition cohesiveness in rural tobacco-growing communities.
Trial report in Journal of community health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Key Factors Inhibiting Legislative Progress Toward Smoke-Free Coverage in Appalachia.American journal of public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Promoting tobacco control policies in rural tobacco-growing communities presents unique challenges. The purpose of this study was to assess smoke-free coalition cohesiveness in rural communities and identify coalition members' perceived barriers or divisive issues that impede the development of smoke-free policies. A secondary aim was to evaluate differences in coalition cohesiveness between advocates in communities receiving stage-based, tailored policy advocacy assistance versus those without assistance. Tobacco control advocates from 40 rural Kentucky communities were interviewed by telephone during the final wave of a 5-year longitudinal study of community readiness for smoke-free policy. On average, five health advocates per county participated in the 45-min interview. Participants rated coalition cohesiveness as not at all cohesive, somewhat cohesive, or very cohesive, and answered one open-ended question about potentially divisive issues within their coalitions. The mean age of the 186 participants was 48.1 years (SD = 13.3). The sample was predominantly female (83.6%) and Caucasian (99.5%). Divisive concerns ranged from rights issues, member characteristics, type of law, and whether or not to allow certain exemptions. Three of the divisive concerns were significantly associated with their rankings of coalition cohesiveness: raising tobacco in the community, the belief that smoke-free would adversely affect the economy, and government control. Educating coalition members on the economics of smoke-free laws and the actual economic impact on tobacco-growing may promote smoke-free coalition cohesiveness. More resources are needed to support policy advocacy in rural tobacco-growing communities as well as efforts to reduce the divisive concerns reported in this study.
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.