Tobacco retailer density and rurality across four US states: California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emerson Webb MS, Peter F. Craigmile PhD, Meghan E. Morean PhD, Grace Kong PhD, Joseph G. L. Lee PhD, Ryan J. Martin PhD, Jessica Barrington-Trimis PhD, Rui Qiang PhD, Vitoria Borges Spinola DDS, Megan E. Roberts PhD
{"title":"Tobacco retailer density and rurality across four US states: California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio","authors":"Emerson Webb MS,&nbsp;Peter F. Craigmile PhD,&nbsp;Meghan E. Morean PhD,&nbsp;Grace Kong PhD,&nbsp;Joseph G. L. Lee PhD,&nbsp;Ryan J. Martin PhD,&nbsp;Jessica Barrington-Trimis PhD,&nbsp;Rui Qiang PhD,&nbsp;Vitoria Borges Spinola DDS,&nbsp;Megan E. Roberts PhD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Research has demonstrated many types of disparities in tobacco retailer density (TRD), but these analyses often fail to explore rural disparities. Given the substantial burden of rural tobacco use in the USA, this is a critical gap. The purpose of the present study was to estimate rural disparities in TRD across four US states.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>For the states of California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio, we used spatial statistical methods to model per capita TRD at the census tract level. Rurality was defined by the US Department of Agriculture Rural-Uran Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and categorized into Metropolitan, Micropolitan, Small Town, and Rural.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Tobacco retailer count was highest in California (22,533), but TRD was highest in Connecticut (1.23 retailers per 1000 residents). In models for California, North Carolina, and Ohio (but not Connecticut), there was an association between rurality and TRD, such that rural census tracts had greater TRD than metropolitan census tracts. Micropolitan and small town (vs. metropolitan) census tracts also had greater TRD, although the association was not as strong. Models further showed associations between TRD and census tract poverty, racial and ethnic composition, and Appalachian designation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Although there are notable state-level differences, TRD is clearly associated with rurality. Given the literature on the impacts of living in tobacco-retailer-dense areas, rural disparities in TRD likely contribute to rural disparities in tobacco use. There is a need for further policies in rural areas of the USA that address the tobacco retailer environment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jrh.70073","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Research has demonstrated many types of disparities in tobacco retailer density (TRD), but these analyses often fail to explore rural disparities. Given the substantial burden of rural tobacco use in the USA, this is a critical gap. The purpose of the present study was to estimate rural disparities in TRD across four US states.

Methods

For the states of California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio, we used spatial statistical methods to model per capita TRD at the census tract level. Rurality was defined by the US Department of Agriculture Rural-Uran Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and categorized into Metropolitan, Micropolitan, Small Town, and Rural.

Findings

Tobacco retailer count was highest in California (22,533), but TRD was highest in Connecticut (1.23 retailers per 1000 residents). In models for California, North Carolina, and Ohio (but not Connecticut), there was an association between rurality and TRD, such that rural census tracts had greater TRD than metropolitan census tracts. Micropolitan and small town (vs. metropolitan) census tracts also had greater TRD, although the association was not as strong. Models further showed associations between TRD and census tract poverty, racial and ethnic composition, and Appalachian designation.

Conclusions

Although there are notable state-level differences, TRD is clearly associated with rurality. Given the literature on the impacts of living in tobacco-retailer-dense areas, rural disparities in TRD likely contribute to rural disparities in tobacco use. There is a need for further policies in rural areas of the USA that address the tobacco retailer environment.

Abstract Image

美国四个州的烟草零售商密度和乡村性:加利福尼亚州,康涅狄格州,北卡罗来纳州和俄亥俄州
研究表明烟草零售商密度(TRD)存在多种类型的差异,但这些分析往往未能探索农村的差异。鉴于美国农村烟草使用的巨大负担,这是一个重大差距。本研究的目的是估计美国四个州农村地区的TRD差异。方法针对加利福尼亚州、康涅狄格州、北卡罗来纳州和俄亥俄州,采用空间统计方法对人口普查区水平的人均TRD进行建模。农村是由美国农业部农村-城市通勤区(RUCA)代码定义的,分为大都市、小城市、小城镇和农村。烟草零售商数量在加利福尼亚州最高(22,533),但TRD在康涅狄格州最高(每1000名居民1.23家零售商)。在加利福尼亚州、北卡罗来纳州和俄亥俄州(但不包括康涅狄格州)的模型中,乡村性和TRD之间存在关联,因此农村人口普查区的TRD高于大都市人口普查区。小城市和小城镇(与大都市相比)人口普查区也有更高的TRD,尽管这种关联没有那么强。模型进一步显示了TRD与人口普查区贫困、种族和民族构成以及阿巴拉契亚地区之间的联系。结论虽然存在显著的州际差异,但TRD与乡村性明显相关。鉴于有关生活在烟草零售商密集地区的影响的文献,农村地区在TRD方面的差异可能导致农村地区在烟草使用方面的差异。美国农村地区需要进一步的政策来解决烟草零售商的环境问题。
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
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信