Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30261241›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2018

Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States.

Frances A Stillman, Erin Tanenbaum, Mary Ellen Wewers, Devi Chelluri, Elizabeth A Mumford, Katherine Groesbeck, Nathan Doogan, Megan Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Rural-Urban Disparities in Perinatal Smoking in the United States: Trends and Determinants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Home Smoke-Free Policies as Children Age: Urban, Rural, and Suburban Differences.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Secondhand Smoke Exposure at Home and/or in a Vehicle: Differences Between Urban and Non-Urban Adolescents in the United States, From 2015 to 2018.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Frances A StillmanNORC at the University of Chicago, United States of America. Electronic address: Stillman-Frances@norc.org.
Erin TanenbaumNORC at the University of Chicago, United States of America.
Mary Ellen WewersOhio State University, United States of America.
Devi ChelluriNORC at the University of Chicago, United States of America.
Elizabeth A MumfordNORC at the University of Chicago, United States of America.
Katherine GroesbeckNORC at the University of Chicago, United States of America.
Nathan DooganOhio State University, United States of America.
Megan RobertsOhio State University, United States of America.

Funding

Defining the urban-rural continuum and distinguishing rural differences to prevent tobacco useR21CA205589 · NCI · NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER · PI STILLMAN, FRANCES ALENA, WEWERS, MARY ELLEN · 2016 to 2018
$529k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA205589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant disparities exist between rural-urban U.S. POPULATIONS: Besides higher smoking rates, rural Americans are less likely to be protected from SHS. Few studies focus across all regions, obscuring regional-level differences. This study compares support for SHS restrictions across all HHS regions. DATA: 2014/15 TUS-CPS; respondents (n = 228,967): 47,805 were rural residents and 181,162 urban. We examined bi-variates across regions and urban-rural adjusted odds ratios within each. Smoking inside the home was assessed along with attitudes toward smoking in bars, casinos, playgrounds, cars, and cars with kids. Urban respondents were significantly more supportive of all SHS policies: (e.g. smoking in bars [57.9% vs. 51.4%]; support for kids in cars [94.8% vs. 92.5%]. Greatest difference between urban-rural residents was in Mid-Atlantic (bar restrictions) and Southeast (home bans): almost 10% less supportive. Logistic regression confirmed rural residents least likely, overall, to support SHS in homes (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.81); in cars (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95), on playgrounds (OR = 0.88, 95% CI.83, 0.94) and in bars OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85, 0.92), when controlling for demographics and smoking status. South Central rural residents were significantly less likely to support SHS policies-home bans, smoking in cars with kids, on playgrounds, in bars and casinos; while Heartland rural residents were significantly more supportive of policies restricting smoking in cars, cars with kids and on playgrounds. Southeast and South Central had lowest policy score with no comprehensive state-level SHS policies. Understanding differences is important to target interventions to reduce exposure to SHS and related health disparities.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesRural PopulationSmoke-Free PolicyAdultAgedAttitudeEnvironmental ExposureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTobacco Smoke PollutionUnited StatesUrban PopulationTobacco Smoke PollutionDisparitiesPolicyRuralSecondhand smokeTobacco controlTUS-CPS

Identifiers

PMID30261241
PMCPMC6689396

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.