Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31944839›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2020

Preemption in Tobacco Control: A Framework for Other Areas of Public Health.

Eric Crosbie, Laura A Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Simulating the Impact of Zoning Policies on Equitably Reducing Neighborhood Tobacco Retailer Availability.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Adoption of Tobacco 21: A Cross-Case Analysis of Ten US States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eric CrosbieEric Crosbie is with the School of Community Health Sciences and the Ozmen Institute for Global Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Laura Schmidt is with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Laura A SchmidtEric Crosbie is with the School of Community Health Sciences and the Ozmen Institute for Global Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Laura Schmidt is with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001872 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI COLLARD, HAROLD R, JACOBY, VANESSA · 2016 to 2025
$112.1M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001872NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preemption-when a higher level of government limits the authority of a lower level to enact new policies-has been devastating to tobacco control. We developed a preemption framework based on this experience for anticipating and responding to the possibility of preemption in other public health areas. We analyzed peer-reviewed literature, reports, and government documents pertaining to tobacco control preemption. We triangulated data and thematically analyzed them.Since the 1980s, tobacco companies have attempted to secure state preemption through front groups, lobbying key policymakers, inserting preemption into other legislation, and issuing legal threats and challenges. The tobacco control community responded by creating awareness of preemption through media advocacy, educating policymakers, mobilizing national collaborations, and expanding networks with the legal community. Ten of the 25 state smoke-free preemption laws have been fully repealed. Repeal, however, took an average of 11 years.State preemption has been detrimental to tobacco control by dividing the health community, weakening local authority, chilling public education and debate, and slowing local policy diffusion. Health scholars, advocates, and policymakers should use the framework to anticipate and prevent industry use of preemption in other public health areas.

Indexed as

State GovernmentHumansLobbyingLocal GovernmentPublic HealthSmoking PreventionTobacco IndustryUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31944839
PMCPMC7002944

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.