American journal of public health · 2011
The effects of Arkansas master settlement spending on disparities in smoking.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yu Hao, Scharf Deborah, Engberg John, Schultz Dana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effect of Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) spending on smoking disparities in Arkansas, which distinguished itself from other states by investing all of its MSA funds in health-related programs.
METHODS: In 1996-2009 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we specified multivariate logistic models to examine gender and racial/ethnic disparities in smoking rates within Arkansas (a pre-post analysis) and between Arkansas and its 6 neighboring states.
RESULTS: Before the MSA programs started in 2001, male Arkansans smoked more than did female Arkansans (P < .05). After the programs, smoking declined significantly among men (but not women), eliminating the gender disparity by 2009. Smoking among men in Arkansas also declined more than it did in neighboring states (P < .05). Hispanics showed a greater decline in smoking than did non-Hispanic Whites in Arkansas (but not in neighboring states). In 2001, Hispanic Arkansans smoked more than did non-Hispanic Whites (P < .05); by 2009, Hispanic Arkansans smoked significantly less than did non-Hispanic Whites (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: MSA-funded programs were more effective in some segments of the Arkansas population than in others. Policymakers should consider targeting future MSA tobacco control programs to populations most resistant to change.
METHODS: In 1996-2009 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we specified multivariate logistic models to examine gender and racial/ethnic disparities in smoking rates within Arkansas (a pre-post analysis) and between Arkansas and its 6 neighboring states.
RESULTS: Before the MSA programs started in 2001, male Arkansans smoked more than did female Arkansans (P < .05). After the programs, smoking declined significantly among men (but not women), eliminating the gender disparity by 2009. Smoking among men in Arkansas also declined more than it did in neighboring states (P < .05). Hispanics showed a greater decline in smoking than did non-Hispanic Whites in Arkansas (but not in neighboring states). In 2001, Hispanic Arkansans smoked more than did non-Hispanic Whites (P < .05); by 2009, Hispanic Arkansans smoked significantly less than did non-Hispanic Whites (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: MSA-funded programs were more effective in some segments of the Arkansas population than in others. Policymakers should consider targeting future MSA tobacco control programs to populations most resistant to change.