Term limits and the tobacco industry.

Dorie E Apollonio, Stanton A Glantz, Lisa A Bero

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Dorie E ApollonioUniversity of California, San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, 3333 California Street Suite 420, San Francisco, CA 94143-0613, USA. Electronic address: Dorie.Apollonio@ucsf.edu.

Stanton A GlantzUniversity of California, San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366 Library, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA.

Lisa A BeroUniversity of California, San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, 3333 California Street Suite 420, San Francisco, CA 94143-0613, USA.

Funding

TOBACCO ADVOCACY AT THE STATE LEVELR01CA061021 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 1994 to 2015

$7.4M

Translating Research into Systemic Interventions for Tobacco CessationK07CA140236 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI APOLLONIO, DOROTHY ELINOR · 2011 to 2015

$838k

NCI NIH HHS CA-61021NCI NIH HHS K07 CA140236NCI NIH HHS R01 CA061021

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the 1990s several American states passed term limits on legislators with the stated intention of reducing the influence of wealthy industries on career legislators. Although term limits in the United States do not have a direct relationship to public health, the tobacco industry anticipated that term limits could have indirect effects by either limiting or expanding industry influence. We detail the strategy of the tobacco industry in the wake of term limits using internal tobacco company documents and a database of campaign contributions made to legislators in term limited states between 1988 and 2002. Despite some expectations that term limits would limit tobacco industry access to state legislators, term limits appear to have had the opposite effect.

Indexed as

PoliticsTobacco IndustryFinancial SupportHealth PolicyHumansUnited StatesCampaign financeHealth policyTerm limitsTobacco controlUnited states

Identifiers

PMID24581055

DOI10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.005

PMCPMC4071941

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.