An Association Between State Laws Limiting Local Control and Community Smoke-Free Indoor Air in the United States.

IF 2.5 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of Primary Care and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/21501319241280905
Sunday Azagba, Todd Ebling, Alperen Korkmaz, Jessica King Jensen, Fares Qeadan, Mark Hall
{"title":"An Association Between State Laws Limiting Local Control and Community Smoke-Free Indoor Air in the United States.","authors":"Sunday Azagba, Todd Ebling, Alperen Korkmaz, Jessica King Jensen, Fares Qeadan, Mark Hall","doi":"10.1177/21501319241280905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines the association between state laws limiting local control (preemption laws) and local smoke-free policies. We utilized policy data from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. The primary outcome variable is the presence of a \"100% smoke-free policy,\" across any of 4 indoor settings: workplaces, restaurants, bars, and gaming venues. We employed generalized structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between state laws pre-empting smoke-free indoor air regulation and local adoption of policies requiring smoke-free air in any public venues, or for specific venues, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Our findings reveal a significant association between state preemption laws and the presence of a local 100% smoke-free indoor policy as of 2023. In states with preemption laws, cities were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy at any venue than cities in states without preemption laws (OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.05-0.10). When considering specific smoke-free venues, cities in states with preemption laws were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy covering workplaces (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.03-0.09), restaurants (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.07), bars (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.08), and gaming venues (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01-0.09) compared to cities in states without preemption laws. Our study suggests that state preemption laws limit local decision-making and the implementation of public health policies focused on tobacco harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"15 ","pages":"21501319241280905"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11403690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241280905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the association between state laws limiting local control (preemption laws) and local smoke-free policies. We utilized policy data from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. The primary outcome variable is the presence of a "100% smoke-free policy," across any of 4 indoor settings: workplaces, restaurants, bars, and gaming venues. We employed generalized structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between state laws pre-empting smoke-free indoor air regulation and local adoption of policies requiring smoke-free air in any public venues, or for specific venues, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Our findings reveal a significant association between state preemption laws and the presence of a local 100% smoke-free indoor policy as of 2023. In states with preemption laws, cities were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy at any venue than cities in states without preemption laws (OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.05-0.10). When considering specific smoke-free venues, cities in states with preemption laws were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy covering workplaces (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.03-0.09), restaurants (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.07), bars (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.08), and gaming venues (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01-0.09) compared to cities in states without preemption laws. Our study suggests that state preemption laws limit local decision-making and the implementation of public health policies focused on tobacco harms.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国限制地方控制的州法律与社区无烟室内空气之间的关联。
本研究探讨了限制地方控制权的州法律(优先权法律)与地方无烟政策之间的关联。我们利用了美国非吸烟者权利基金会(American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation)提供的政策数据。主要结果变量是在工作场所、餐馆、酒吧和游戏场所这 4 种室内环境中是否存在 "100% 无烟政策"。我们采用了广义结构方程模型来研究州法律对室内无烟空气法规的优先权与地方采纳要求在任何公共场所或特定场所实行无烟空气政策之间的关系,并对社会人口特征进行了调整。我们的研究结果表明,各州的免责法律与地方在 2023 年之前实行 100% 室内无烟政策之间存在着重要的关联。在有法律豁免的州,与没有法律豁免的州相比,城市在任何场所实行100%室内无烟政策的可能性都较低(OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.05-0.10)。当考虑到具体的无烟场所时,与没有立法豁免州的城市相比,立法豁免州的城市在工作场所(OR = 0.05,95% CI = 0.03-0.09)、餐馆(OR = 0.04,95% CI = 0.02-0.07)、酒吧(OR = 0.04,95% CI = 0.03-0.08)和游戏场所(OR = 0.03,95% CI = 0.01-0.09)实行100%室内无烟政策的可能性较低。我们的研究表明,各州的豁免法限制了地方决策和以烟草危害为重点的公共卫生政策的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Merging Law and Medicine: Patient Attitudes About and Experiences with Social Needs Screening and Medical-Legal Partnerships in Primary Care. Understanding Experiences of First Contact Physiotherapy in General Practice: A Realist Qualitative Study. The Effects of a Health Literacy Promotion Program on Health Behaviors and Blood Pressure Levels Among Uncontrolled Hypertensive Patients: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Dynamics of Lifestyle Counseling for Chronic Diseases Within and Between General Practices and Social Work Services Causal Loop Diagram and Points for Improvement. "The resources are there, it's just not sufficient:" Primary Care Team Members and Their Experiences with Connecting Patients to Needed Resources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1