ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Tobacco policy coverage in California jurisdictions before and after enactment of proposition 56.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Proposition 56, a $2 tobacco tax enacted in California in 2016, led to increased funding to Local Lead Agencies which work to reduce tobacco use. We examined whether Proposition 56 was associated with increases in the population covered by local policies addressing four areas: 1) tobacco retail sales (TRS), 2) flavored tobacco products sales (FTP), 3) outdoor secondhand smoke (SHS) restrictions, and 4) smoking restrictions in multi-unit housing (MUH). Methods: 2007-2023 data from the Policy Evaluation Tracking System in California were analyzed. The unit of analysis was the California jurisdiction, with outcome the time (in months) to policy enactment in a jurisdiction. Kaplan-Meier estimates and population coverage percentages were calculated by weighing each jurisdiction by its population size. Discrete-time survival models were fitted to test the effect of Proposition 56 on the rate of population coverage for each policy of interest. Results: By January 2023, 79 % of the California population was covered by a local SHS policy but only 55 %, 47 % and 18 % was covered by a local TRS, FTP and MUH policy, respectively. The rate of increase in TRS and FTP policy coverage was greater post-Proposition 56 than pre-Proposition 56 ( Conclusions: Proposition 56 was associated with marked increases in the enactment of TRS and FTP, but not SHS or MUH policies. Despite increases post-Proposition 56, additional efforts are needed to increase local adoption of TRS, FTP and MUH policies because coverage remains low.
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.