Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37840595›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023

A thematic content analysis of 2010-2015 state tobacco control legislation in the United States: Bill rationales and priority populations.

Amanda Y Kong, Vivian Qingzi Tao, Shelley D Golden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda Y KongDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 Stanton L Young Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73117, USA.
Vivian Qingzi TaoDepartment of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 170 Rosenau Hall, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Shelley D GoldenDepartment of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 170 Rosenau Hall, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · US

Funding

Tissue Pathology Shared ResourceP30CA225520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI ROBERT S. MANNEL · 2018 to 2026
$27.1M
Cancer Health Disparities Training ProgramT32CA128582 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ENG, EUGENIA, TATE, DEBORAH F. · 2009 to 2023
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA225520NCI NIH HHS T32 CA128582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Tobacco use causes numerous types of cancers, heart diseases, and chronic illnesses, and is responsible for nearly 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually. This study assessed whether tobacco control laws introduced in state legislatures between 2010 and 2015 provided a rationale for the proposed bill and/or specified priority population groups, and we then examined emerging themes in the text that did so. Methods: Using LexisNexis® State Net®, we identified tobacco control bills introduced in all states and coded their bill rationales and population category. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis on a sample of bills with rationales or specified populations. Results: Of the 2815 tobacco control bills introduced in state legislatures in the analysis period, 422 (15.0%) included a bill rationale, and 1309 (46.5%) specified at least one priority population. Four overarching themes emerged: 1) Addressing tobacco-related health harms and financial costs incurred to society; 2) Protecting the public from tobacco-related harms as a government responsibility; 3) Providing services to priority populations; 4) Exempting or preempting some population groups and localities. Conclusions: Rationalizing tobacco control legislation by focusing on both health and cost implications was a key feature of tobacco policy bill text we analyzed; given the history of this approach, it is likely to remain so in the future. Our study may serve as a benchmark for tracking current and future tobacco control legislation to examine whether there is a growth in prioritizing populations experiencing unjust burdens of tobacco use and related disease.

Indexed as

Health equityHealth policyLegal epidemiologyPolicy analysisPriority populationsState legislationTobacco control

Identifiers

PMID37840595
PMCPMC10570700
OpenAlexW4387095134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.