Political Climate and Smoke-Free Laws in Rural Kentucky Communities

Rayens, Mary Kay; York, Nancy L.; Adkins, Sarah; Kaufman, Erin L.; Hahn, Ellen J.

doi:10.1177/1527154412456434

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly, existing policies (voluntary smoke‐free policies) improved over time but not as a result of the intervention as it did not specifically target voluntary policy change. The change in voluntary policies over time regardless of the intervention is consistent with increasing support and awareness of the benefits of smoke‐free policies in rural communities …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…The change in voluntary policies over time regardless of the intervention is consistent with increasing support 53 and awareness of the benefits of smoke-free policies in rural communities. 69 Rural communities receiving the stage-specific, tailored intervention to promote smoke-free policy also had better policy outcomes compared to Comparison communities. Nearly 1-third of the Intervention counties had smoke-free laws covering restaurants, bars, and/or all workplaces; none of the Comparison counties had these laws.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Controlled Community‐Based Trial to Promote Smoke‐Free Policy in Rural Communities

Hahn

Rayens

Adkins

et al. 2014

The Journal of Rural Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stage-specific, tailored policy-focused intervention acted as a value-added resource to local smoke-free campaigns by promoting readiness for policy, as well as actual policy change in rural communities. Although actual policy change and percent covered by the policies were modest, these areas need additional resources and efforts to build capacity, build demand, and translate and disseminate science in order to accelerate smoke-free policy change and reduce the enormous toll from tobacco in these high-risk communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Controlled Community‐Based Trial to Promote Smoke‐Free Policy in Rural Communities

Hahn

Rayens

Adkins

et al. 2014

The Journal of Rural Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31 Rural residents in general have similar smoking prevalence. 12, 32, 33 There is evidence that cultural factors, 34 low access to health care, 35 targeting by the tobacco industry, 34 and reduced exposure to smoke-free public spaces 36–38 are likely related to rural residents’ resistance to reduction in smoking rates. Given significant evidence that SGM are exposed to similar disparities, 7, 28, 39–43 these factors may also be associated with continued high smoking rates in SGM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Persistent Disparity: Smoking in Rural Sexual and Gender Minorities

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) smoke cigarettes at higher rates than the general population. Historically, research in SGM health issues was conducted in urban populations and recent population-based studies seldom have sufficient SGM participants to distinguish urban from rural. Given that rural populations also tend to have a smoking disparity, and that many SGM live in rural areas, it is vitally important to understand the intersection of rural residence, SGM identity, and smoking. This study analyzes the patterns of smoking in urban and rural SGM in a large sample. Methods We conducted an analysis of 4280 adult participants in the Out, Proud, and Healthy project with complete data on SGM status, smoking status, and zip code. Surveys were conducted at 6 Missouri Pride Festivals and online in 2012. Analysis involved descriptive and bivariate methods, and multivariable logistic regression. We used GIS mapping to demonstrate the dispersion of rural SGM participants. Results SGM had higher smoking proportion than the non-SGM recruited from these settings. In the multivariable model, SGM identity conferred 1.35 times the odds of being a current smoker when controlled for covariates. Rural residence was not independently significant, demonstrating the persistence of the smoking disparity in rural SGM. Mapping revealed widespread distribution of SGM in rural areas. Conclusion The SGM smoking disparity persists among rural SGM. These communities would benefit from continued research into interventions targeting both SGM and rural tobacco control measures. Recruitment at Pride Festivals may provide a venue for reaching rural SGM for intervention.

show abstract

“…This is an important finding, given that studies on LHDs repeatedly show that size of the jurisdictional population is one of the strongest correlates of LHD performance. 9,16,38,43,47,49 The uneven distribution of LHDs by governance type might have been a limitation of this analysis. 3 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating a Taxonomy of Local Boards of Health Based on Local Health Departments’ Perspectives

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-To develop a local board of health (LBoH) classification scheme and empirical definitions to provide a coherent framework for describing variation in the LBoHs.Methods-This study is based on data from the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of local health department administrators, with 394 responses. The classification development consisted of the following steps: (1) theoretically guided initial domain development, (2) mapping of the survey variables to the proposed domains, (3) data reduction using principal component analysis and group consensus, and (4) scale development and testing for internal consistency.Results-The final classification scheme included 60 items across 6 governance function domains and an additional domain-LBoH characteristics and strengths, such as meeting frequency, composition, and diversity of information sources. Application of this classification strongly supports the premise that LBoHs differ in their performance of governance functions and in other characteristics.Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints" link.Correspondence should be sent to Gulzar H. Shah, Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8015, Statesboro, GA 30460 (gshah@georgiasouthern.edu). CONTRIBUTORS G. H. Shah coordinated the development of the article, performed statistical analyses, and participated in writing. G. H. Shah and S. Sotnikov prepared the analysis design for the article. All authors participated in writing various sections, editing and improving the entire article, and outlining content in this article through discussions and consensus. HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTIONHuman participant protection was not required because this research used secondary data. HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript Am J Public Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 10. Conclusions-TheLBoH taxonomy provides an empirically tested standardized tool for classifying LBoHs from the viewpoint of local health department administrators. Future studies can use this taxonomy to better characterize the impact of LBoHs.Local boards of health (LBoHs), a fundamental component of the public health governance structure, have guided public health interventions since the 19th century. 1 Like many other governing bodies, an LBoH is vested with the authority to make decisions, "formulate the policy and direct the affairs of an institution in partnership with the managers … on a voluntary or part-time basis." 2 LBoHs have evolved with the changing public health landscape to address emerging public health threats. 1 Currently, LBoHs govern 7 out of 10 local health departments (LHDs) of all sizes in the United States. 3 The National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH) defines an LBoH as a legally designated body whose members are appointed or elected to provide advisory functions and/or governing oversight for the primary governmental public health agency, and/or public health activities (assessment, assurance, and/or policy dev...

show abstract

Political Climate and Smoke-Free Laws in Rural Kentucky Communities

Cited by 10 publications

References 47 publications

A Controlled Community‐Based Trial to Promote Smoke‐Free Policy in Rural Communities

A Controlled Community‐Based Trial to Promote Smoke‐Free Policy in Rural Communities

A Persistent Disparity: Smoking in Rural Sexual and Gender Minorities

Creating a Taxonomy of Local Boards of Health Based on Local Health Departments’ Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About