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":"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","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Tobacco retailer density and rurality across four US states: California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Tobacco retailer density and rurality across four US states: California, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio
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.
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.