ArticlePreventive medicine2018
Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rural-Urban Patterns in Household Rules Limiting Combustible Tobacco, Noncombustible Tobacco, and E-Cigarette Use.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Rural-Urban Disparities in Perinatal Smoking in the United States: Trends and Determinants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Caregiver restrictions on child access to tobacco in the home and home Smoking/Vaping bans among Black/African American women caregivers who smoke and live in Resource-limited, rural areas.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Environmental Health Assessment by Local Environmental Justice Experts for Evidence-based Decision-making in an Agricultural Community of Northern California.Community science · 2024Article
- Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021Review
- 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 · 2021Article
- How should we define "rural" when investigating rural tobacco use in the United States?Substance abuse · 2021Article
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
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
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.