Examining the association between California tobacco licensed retail density and public support or opposition to state anti-tobacco legislation.

IF 1.9 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Vidya Purushothaman, Raphael E Cuomo, Jiawei Li, Tim K Mackey
{"title":"Examining the association between California tobacco licensed retail density and public support or opposition to state anti-tobacco legislation.","authors":"Vidya Purushothaman,&nbsp;Raphael E Cuomo,&nbsp;Jiawei Li,&nbsp;Tim K Mackey","doi":"10.18332/tpc/156460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The state of California has enacted progressive anti-tobacco policies, including Proposition 56 in 2016. In response, the alternative and emerging tobacco product (ATP) industry has increased its political activity. This study explores the association between the proportion of people voting against Proposition 56 and tobacco/ATP retail density.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis using data on licensed California tobacco retailers, which were then cross-referenced for categorization using Yelp. Proportion voting against Proposition 56 was obtained from the Secretary of State's website. A series of linear regression tests were performed between population-normalized retailer density and voting proportion at the county level before and after adjusting for covariates such as age, gender, race/ethnicity and median household income.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of licensed tobacco retailers increased by 29.31% from 2015 to 2019. Association between proportion voting against Proposition 56 and retail density was significant during voting and during periods of policy implementation and post-implementation (2016-2018) for non-specialized tobacco retailers. For specialized/ATP retailers, significance was only detected during the post-implementation period (2018-2019) after normalization. Proportion voting against Proposition 56 was also a significant predictor of increase in total number of non-specific (β=0.48, p=0.008) as well as specialized tobacco and/or ATP retail storefronts (β=0.21, p=0.001) from 2016 to 2018.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides initial evidence of the association between tobacco retail density and voting patterns for anti-tobacco policy. Future research should examine the role of tobacco retail density on variation in local support for state tobacco control initiatives, including tailoring outreach to specific voting census blocks in communities with heavy retail presence.</p>","PeriodicalId":44546,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Prevention & Cessation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c7/a0/TPC-9-02.PMC9853904.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Prevention & Cessation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18332/tpc/156460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The state of California has enacted progressive anti-tobacco policies, including Proposition 56 in 2016. In response, the alternative and emerging tobacco product (ATP) industry has increased its political activity. This study explores the association between the proportion of people voting against Proposition 56 and tobacco/ATP retail density.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data on licensed California tobacco retailers, which were then cross-referenced for categorization using Yelp. Proportion voting against Proposition 56 was obtained from the Secretary of State's website. A series of linear regression tests were performed between population-normalized retailer density and voting proportion at the county level before and after adjusting for covariates such as age, gender, race/ethnicity and median household income.

Results: The total number of licensed tobacco retailers increased by 29.31% from 2015 to 2019. Association between proportion voting against Proposition 56 and retail density was significant during voting and during periods of policy implementation and post-implementation (2016-2018) for non-specialized tobacco retailers. For specialized/ATP retailers, significance was only detected during the post-implementation period (2018-2019) after normalization. Proportion voting against Proposition 56 was also a significant predictor of increase in total number of non-specific (β=0.48, p=0.008) as well as specialized tobacco and/or ATP retail storefronts (β=0.21, p=0.001) from 2016 to 2018.

Conclusions: This study provides initial evidence of the association between tobacco retail density and voting patterns for anti-tobacco policy. Future research should examine the role of tobacco retail density on variation in local support for state tobacco control initiatives, including tailoring outreach to specific voting census blocks in communities with heavy retail presence.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

考察加州烟草许可零售密度与公众对州反烟草立法的支持或反对之间的关系。
简介:加利福尼亚州已经制定了进步的反烟草政策,包括2016年的56号提案。作为回应,替代性和新兴烟草制品(ATP)行业增加了其政治活动。本研究探讨了投票反对第56号提案的人数比例与烟草/ATP零售密度之间的关系。方法:我们使用加州授权烟草零售商的数据进行回顾性分析,然后使用Yelp进行交叉参考分类。反对56号提案的投票比例是在州务卿网站上获得的。在调整协变量(如年龄、性别、种族/民族和家庭收入中位数)前后,对人口标准化零售商密度与县级投票比例进行了一系列线性回归检验。结果:2015年至2019年,持证烟草零售商总数增长29.31%。对于非专业烟草零售商而言,在投票期间以及政策实施期间和实施后(2016-2018年),投票反对56号提案的比例与零售密度之间存在显著关联。对于专业/ATP零售商,仅在标准化后的实施后阶段(2018-2019年)才检测到显著性。投票反对第56号提案的比例也是2016年至2018年非特异性(β=0.48, p=0.008)以及专门烟草和/或ATP零售店面总数增加的重要预测因子(β=0.21, p=0.001)。结论:本研究提供了烟草零售密度与反烟草政策投票模式之间关系的初步证据。未来的研究应检查烟草零售密度对地方对州烟草控制倡议的支持变化的作用,包括在零售较多的社区中为特定的投票普查区量身定制外展服务。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
155
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信