Population Support Before and After the Implementation of Smoke-Free Laws in the United States: Trends From 1992–2007

Nagelhout, Gera E.; Wolfson, Tanya; Zhuang, Yue-Lin; Gamst, Anthony; Willemsen, Marc C.; Zhu, Shu‐Hong

doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu162

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these increases do not appear to be due to the 2014 Minneapolis Staple Food Ordinance, unless an effect in Minneapolis spilled over to St. Paul. These results are also consistent with literature on other policies, such as smoke-free laws, which suggest support for policy banning smoking increased after policy implementation (14)(15)(16) . Overall, this support among managers is encouraging, as previous work indicates that having strong, or even moderate, owner support of a programme to increase stocking of healthy products can increase likelihood of success in changing and sustaining stocking practices (17) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Small food store retailers’ views on healthy food retail policy in response to a local staple foods ordinance

McGuire

Winkler

Lenk

et al. 2020

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Our objectives were to explore attitudes regarding food retail policy and government regulation among managers of small food stores and examine whether manager views changed due to the 2014 Minneapolis Staple Foods Ordinance, a city policy requiring retailers to stock specific healthy products. Design: Manager interviewer-administered surveys were used to assess views on food retail policy four times from 2014 to 2017. We examined baseline views across manager and store and neighbourhood characteristics using cross-sectional regression analyses and examined changes over time using mixed regression models. In 2017, open-ended survey questions asked about manager insights on the Minneapolis Staple Foods Ordinance. Setting: Minneapolis, MN, where the ordinance was enacted, and St. Paul, MN, a control community, USA. Participants: Managers from 147 small food retail stores. Results: At baseline, 48 % of managers were likely to support a policy requiring stores to stock healthy foods/beverages, 67·5 % of managers were likely to support voluntary programmes to help retailers stock healthy foods and 23·7 % agreed government regulation of business is good/necessary. There was a significant increase in overall support for food retail policies and voluntary programmes from 2014 to 2017 (P < 0·01); however, neither increase differed by city, suggesting no differential impact from the ordinance. Minneapolis store managers reported some challenges with ordinance compliance and offered suggestions for how local government could provide support. Conclusions: Findings suggest that managers of small food retail stores are becoming increasingly amenable to healthy food policies; yet, challenges need to be addressed to ensure healthy food is available to all customers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Small food store retailers’ views on healthy food retail policy in response to a local staple foods ordinance

McGuire

Winkler

Lenk

et al. 2020

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 An additional five states have smoke-free air laws covering only restaurants, representing more than a tenth of the population (12.0%). 8 Despite the rapid expansion of smoke-free air laws during the 2000s, 9 strong public support 10 11 and a near consensus among peer-reviewed studies that smoke-free air laws have generally null or positive economic effects, 12 legislative progress on this issue has stalled in recent years and even regressed in some cases. 13 Population coverage by comprehensive smoke-free air laws has barely changed since 2010 and perhaps counter-intuitively, states with pre-existing non-comprehensive laws are less likely to subsequently pass a more comprehensive law in the future.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of US smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars by employer size: a panel study

Shafer

2017

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThirty states have smoke-free air laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars, covering nearly two-thirds of the US population. It is well established that these laws generally have a null or positive economic impact on restaurants and bars. However, all establishments in a geographic area are usually treated as a homogeneous group without considering the potential for differential effects by establishment characteristics. This study uses variation in smoke-free air laws over time to estimate their impact on employment in restaurants and bars with a focus on potential differences by employer size (number of employees). A two-pronged approach with a national-level and state-level analysis is used to take advantage of more granular data availability for a single state (North Carolina).DesignObservational study using panel data.Setting1) US, 2) North CarolinaInterventionsSmoke-free air laws.Outcome measuresState-level accommodation and food services employment for all 50 states and District of Columbia from 1990 through 2014 (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages); county-level restaurant and bar employment in North Carolina from 2001 through 2014 (North Carolina Department of Commerce).ResultsThere is no evidence of a redistributive effect of smoke-free air laws on restaurant and bar employment by employer size.ConclusionThe lack of a redistributive effect is an important finding for policy-makers considering implementation or expansion of a smoke-free air law to protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke.

show abstract

“…For example, in coordination with its members, the American Public Health Association (APHA) collaborates with key decision-makers to shape public policies that address public health concerns such as access to care, food safety, hunger and nutrition, environmental health issues, disease control, international health, and tobacco control (APHA, 2014). Other specific examples of advocacy-driven public health policies include: (1) smoke-free work places, restaurants, and bars (American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 2014;Nagelhout et al, 2014); (2) tobacco retail display ban-a point-of-sale initiative to reduce youth exposure to tobacco product marketing (Curry, Schmitt, & Juster, 2014); (3) the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health guidelines in Washington State that protect health care workers from dangers of hazardous drugs (Eisenberg, 2012); and (4) restaurant menu labeling in King County Washington State that requires chain restaurants with 15 or more locations nationwide to provide calorie, saturated fat, carbohydrate, and sodium information to customers (Johnson, Payne, McNeese, & Allen, 2012). These public health issues and policies directly impact the health of communities.…”

Section: Uses Of [Chn] Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This involves taking a position on an issue, and initiating actions in a deliberate attempt to influence private and public policy choices (Labonte, 1994). Examples of advocacy work that resulted in health policy changes include previously highlighted smoke-free work places, restaurants and bars legislation (Curry et al, 2014;Nagelhout et al, 2014), health care worker protection from dangers of harzadous drugs (Eisenberg, 2012); and restaurant menu labeling (Johnson et al, 2012). CHN advocacy is important for the implementation and sustainability of legislation that impacts community health.…”

Section: Defining Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Education or information sharing sessions about issues to ensure that everyone involved is well informed (Kohnke, 1982;Rasberry, 2008), and 3. Intervening acts such as (a) providing guidance and counseling (Hagan & Donovan, 2012;Ratts et al, 2007;Tahan, 2005); (b) referring clients to appropriate resources (McElmurry et al, 2003); and (c) assessing problems, analyzing the impacts of the health issues on health, implementing specific programs, evaluating program impacts and outcomes, and pushing for change (Jennings-Sanders & Anderson, 2003;Kramer, 2005;Maryland & Gonzalez, 2012;Military One Source, 2014;Nagelhout et al, 2014).…”

Section: Empirical Referentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community Health Nursing Advocacy: A Concept Analysis

Ezeonwu

2015

Journal of Community Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to present an in-depth analysis of the concept of community health nursing (CHN) advocacy. Walker and Avant's (2010) 8-step concept analysis methodology was used. A broad inquiry into the literature between 1994 and 2014 resulted in the identification of the uses, defining attributes, empirical referents, antecedents, and consequences, as well as the articulation of an operational definition of CHN advocacy. Model and contrary cases were identified to demonstrate the concept's application and to clarify its meaning. This analysis contributes to the advancement of knowledge of CHN advocacy and provides nurse clinicians, educators, and researchers with some conceptual clarity to help improve community health outcomes.

show abstract

Population Support Before and After the Implementation of Smoke-Free Laws in the United States: Trends From 1992–2007

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Small food store retailers’ views on healthy food retail policy in response to a local staple foods ordinance

Small food store retailers’ views on healthy food retail policy in response to a local staple foods ordinance

Impact of US smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars by employer size: a panel study

Community Health Nursing Advocacy: A Concept Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About