RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive cancer control (CCC) coalitions address tobacco use, the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, through formal plans to guide tobacco control activities and other cancer prevention strategies. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (Best Practices) and The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide) are used to assist with this effort. We examined CCC plans to determine the extent to which they followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) tobacco control and funding recommendations. METHODS: We obtained 69 CCC plans, current as of August 1, 2011, to determine which CDC recommendations from Best Practices and The Community Guide were incorporated. Data were abstracted through a content review and key word search and then summarized across the plans with dichotomous indicators. Additionally, we analyzed plans for inclusion of tobacco control funding goals and strategies. RESULTS: CCC plans incorporated a mean 4.5 (standard deviation [SD], 2.1) of 5 recommendations from Best Practices and 5.2 (SD, 0.9) of 10 recommendations from The Community Guide. Two-thirds of plans (66.7%) addressed funding for tobacco control as a strategy or action item; 47.8% of those plans (31.9% of total) defined a specific, measurable funding goal. CONCLUSION: Although most CCC plans follow CDC-recommended tobacco control recommendations and funding levels, not all recommendations are addressed by every plan and certain recommendations are addressed in varying numbers of plans. Clearer prioritization of tobacco control recommendations by CDC may improve the extent to which they are followed and therefore maximize their public health benefit.
Asunto(s)
Benchmarking , Atención Integral de Salud/normas , Guías como Asunto/normas , Neoplasias/prevención & control , Prevención del Hábito de Fumar , Benchmarking/estadística & datos numéricos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Planificación en Salud Comunitaria/métodos , Planificación en Salud Comunitaria/normas , Programas de Gobierno , Humanos , Fumar/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cese del Uso de Tabaco/economía , Cese del Uso de Tabaco/métodos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether newspaper coverage of the Michigan smoke-free law was favorable or hostile, contained positive messages that had been disseminated by public health groups, contained negative messages, and differed across regions. METHOD: Articles about the smoke-free law in print or online editions of Michigan newspapers the month immediately before and after the law took effect were identified and were coded for tone, positive messages contained in media outreach materials, and negative messages commonly disseminated by smoke-free law opponents. RESULTS: A total of 303 print and online articles were identified; the majority were coded as "both positive and negative" (34%) or "mainly positive" in tone (32%). Of 303 articles, 75% contained at least one pro-law message and 56% contained at least one anti-law message. The most common pro-law messages were information about enforcement of the law (52%) and the benefits of smoke-free air (48%); the most common anti-law messages were about potential negative economic impact (36%), government intrusion/overreach (31%), and difficulties with enforcement (28%). CONCLUSIONS: Public health departments and partners play an important role in implementation of smoke-free laws by providing the public, businesses, and other stakeholders with clear and accurate rationale, provisions, and impacts of these policies.
Asunto(s)
Periódicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Política para Fumadores/legislación & jurisprudencia , Economía , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Aplicación de la Ley , MichiganRESUMEN
Despite negative financial conditions in recent years, several states were able to successfully maintain funding for tobacco prevention and control, which provided an opportunity to understand the factors associated with success. One explanation may be the level of long-term program sustainability in some states. According to a model developed by Saint Louis University researchers, the five elements critical to tobacco control sustainability are state political and financial climate; community awareness and capacity; program structure and administration; funding stability and planning; and surveillance and evaluation. Five states (Nebraska, New York, Indiana, Virginia, and Colorado) maintained funding for their tobacco control programs. Four of these states gained additional legislative appropriations or prevented a massive reduction; Colorado used a statewide ballot initiative to increase funding. On the basis of the sustainability framework, case studies, and prior research, the major lessons learned for maintaining funding were the importance of (1) strong and experienced leadership, (2) broad and deep organizational and community ties, (3) coordinated efforts, (4) strategic use of surveillance and evaluation data, (5) active dissemination of information about program successes, and (6) policy maker champions. The sustainability framework and lessons learned may provide valuable insights for other public health programs facing funding threats.
Asunto(s)
Programas de Gobierno/organización & administración , Nicotiana , Prevención del Hábito de Fumar , Fumar/legislación & jurisprudencia , Relaciones Comunidad-Institución , Programas de Gobierno/economía , Educación en Salud/organización & administración , Humanos , Liderazgo , Política , Vigilancia de Guardia , Gobierno Estatal , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Clean indoor air policies are an effective way to eliminate exposure to second hand smoke and reduce smoking among youth and adults; they are strongly recommended by the Surgeon General and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. How these policies are put into effect and at what level of government can make a difference. Legislation that preempts local action prevents communities from enacting more stringent laws or tailoring laws to address community-specific issues. Preemptive state laws also can be a barrier to local enforcement because communities not involved in decision making may be less aware of laws, may have no enforcement mechanism, and thus may be less complaint. Preemption is clearly a tobacco industry strategy to take away local control, usually in exchange for a weak law offering little protection from second hand smoke. As communities across the country continue to pass stronger local ordinances, eliminating preemptive laws becomes more important. During 2002, Delaware became the first state to repeal clean air preemption. In Iowa, the attorney general's office has been involved in the determination of whether the state clean air law prevents communities from passing more stringent ordinances. And although Minnesota's pioneer Clean Indoor Air Act does not preempt local laws, the debate over preemption there has not ended but instead has taken new forms.