Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26890173›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2016

Tobacco-Free Pharmacy Laws and Trends in Tobacco Retailer Density in California and Massachusetts.

Yue Jin, Bo Lu, Elizabeth G Klein, Micah Berman, Randi E Foraker, Amy K Ferketich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Reducing the Density and Number of Tobacco Retailers: Policy Solutions and Legal Issues.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Yue JinAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Bo LuAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Elizabeth G KleinAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Micah BermanAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Randi E ForakerAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Amy K FerketichAt the time of the study, Yue Jin, Randi E. Foraker, and Amy K. Ferketich were with the Division of Epidemiology, Bo Lu was with the Division of Biostatistics, Elizabeth G. Klein was with the Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, and Micah Berman was with the Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the impact of local laws prohibiting tobacco sales in pharmacies in California and Massachusetts, the only 2 US states in which such municipal laws exist.

methodsWe analyzed longitudinally the tobacco retailer density at the city level from tobacco retailer license data in California (2005-2013) and Massachusetts (2004-2014).

resultsAfter adjustments, the reduction in tobacco retailer density over time was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37, 1.51) to 3.18 (95% CI = 1.11, 5.25) times greater in cities with a tobacco-free pharmacy law than in cities without such a law.

conclusionsTobacco-free pharmacy laws are associated with a greater reduction in tobacco retailer density over time in California and Massachusetts.

Indexed as

CaliforniaCommerceHumansLicensureMassachusettsPharmaciesSmokingSmoking PreventionTobacco Products

Identifiers

PMID26890173
PMCPMC4986051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.