Preventive medicine reports · 2023
A thematic content analysis of 2010-2015 state tobacco control legislation in the United States: Bill rationales and priority populations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kong Amanda Y, Qingzi Tao Vivian, Golden Shelley D
Аннотация
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.
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.