Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States

Frances A Stillman, Erin Tanenbaum, Mary Ellen Wewers, Devi Chelluri, Elizabeth A. Mumford, Katherine Groesbeck, Nathan Doogan, Megan Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Significant disparities exist between rural-urban U.S. populations. Besides higher smoking rates, rural Americans are less likely to be protected from SHS. Few studies focus across all regions, obscuring regional-level differences. This study compares support for SHS restrictions across all HHS regions. Data: 2014/15 TUS-CPS; respondents (n = 228,967): 47,805 were rural residents and 181,162 urban. We examined bi-variates across regions and urban-rural adjusted odds ratios within each. Smoking inside the home was assessed along with attitudes toward smoking in bars, casinos, playgrounds, cars, and cars with kids. Urban respondents were significantly more supportive of all SHS policies: (e.g. smoking in bars [57.9% vs. 51.4%]; support for kids in cars [94.8% vs. 92.5%]. Greatest difference between urban-rural residents was in Mid-Atlantic (bar restrictions) and Southeast (home bans): almost 10% less supportive. Logistic regression confirmed rural residents least likely, overall, to support SHS in homes (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.81); in cars (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95), on playgrounds (OR = 0.88, 95% CI.83, 0.94) and in bars OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85, 0.92), when controlling for demographics and smoking status. South Central rural residents were significantly less likely to support SHS policies-home bans, smoking in cars with kids, on playgrounds, in bars and casinos; while Heartland rural residents were significantly more supportive of policies restricting smoking in cars, cars with kids and on playgrounds. Southeast and South Central had lowest policy score with no comprehensive state-level SHS policies. Understanding differences is important to target interventions to reduce exposure to SHS and related health disparities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-165
Number of pages9
JournalPreventive Medicine
Volume116
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tobacco Smoke Pollution
Smoking
Urban Population
Logistic Models
Odds Ratio
Demography
Health

Keywords

  • Disparities
  • Policy
  • Rural
  • Secondhand smoke
  • Tobacco control
  • TUS-CPS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States. / Stillman, Frances A; Tanenbaum, Erin; Wewers, Mary Ellen; Chelluri, Devi; Mumford, Elizabeth A.; Groesbeck, Katherine; Doogan, Nathan; Roberts, Megan.

In: Preventive Medicine, Vol. 116, 01.11.2018, p. 157-165.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stillman, FA, Tanenbaum, E, Wewers, ME, Chelluri, D, Mumford, EA, Groesbeck, K, Doogan, N & Roberts, M 2018, 'Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States', Preventive Medicine, vol. 116, pp. 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.014
Stillman, Frances A ; Tanenbaum, Erin ; Wewers, Mary Ellen ; Chelluri, Devi ; Mumford, Elizabeth A. ; Groesbeck, Katherine ; Doogan, Nathan ; Roberts, Megan. / Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States. In: Preventive Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 116. pp. 157-165.
@article{346b4c2470534ceb87c6d590ed82c783,
title = "Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States",
abstract = "Significant disparities exist between rural-urban U.S. populations. Besides higher smoking rates, rural Americans are less likely to be protected from SHS. Few studies focus across all regions, obscuring regional-level differences. This study compares support for SHS restrictions across all HHS regions. Data: 2014/15 TUS-CPS; respondents (n = 228,967): 47,805 were rural residents and 181,162 urban. We examined bi-variates across regions and urban-rural adjusted odds ratios within each. Smoking inside the home was assessed along with attitudes toward smoking in bars, casinos, playgrounds, cars, and cars with kids. Urban respondents were significantly more supportive of all SHS policies: (e.g. smoking in bars [57.9{\%} vs. 51.4{\%}]; support for kids in cars [94.8{\%} vs. 92.5{\%}]. Greatest difference between urban-rural residents was in Mid-Atlantic (bar restrictions) and Southeast (home bans): almost 10{\%} less supportive. Logistic regression confirmed rural residents least likely, overall, to support SHS in homes (OR = 0.78, 95{\%} CI 0.74, 0.81); in cars (OR = 0.87, 95{\%} CI 0.79, 0.95), on playgrounds (OR = 0.88, 95{\%} CI.83, 0.94) and in bars OR = 0.88, 95{\%} CI 0.85, 0.92), when controlling for demographics and smoking status. South Central rural residents were significantly less likely to support SHS policies-home bans, smoking in cars with kids, on playgrounds, in bars and casinos; while Heartland rural residents were significantly more supportive of policies restricting smoking in cars, cars with kids and on playgrounds. Southeast and South Central had lowest policy score with no comprehensive state-level SHS policies. Understanding differences is important to target interventions to reduce exposure to SHS and related health disparities.",
keywords = "Disparities, Policy, Rural, Secondhand smoke, Tobacco control, TUS-CPS",
author = "Stillman, {Frances A} and Erin Tanenbaum and Wewers, {Mary Ellen} and Devi Chelluri and Mumford, {Elizabeth A.} and Katherine Groesbeck and Nathan Doogan and Megan Roberts",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
pages = "157--165",
journal = "Preventive Medicine",
issn = "0091-7435",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations in support for secondhand smoke restrictions across diverse rural regions of the United States

AU - Stillman, Frances A

AU - Tanenbaum, Erin

AU - Wewers, Mary Ellen

AU - Chelluri, Devi

AU - Mumford, Elizabeth A.

AU - Groesbeck, Katherine

AU - Doogan, Nathan

AU - Roberts, Megan

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Significant disparities exist between rural-urban U.S. populations. Besides higher smoking rates, rural Americans are less likely to be protected from SHS. Few studies focus across all regions, obscuring regional-level differences. This study compares support for SHS restrictions across all HHS regions. Data: 2014/15 TUS-CPS; respondents (n = 228,967): 47,805 were rural residents and 181,162 urban. We examined bi-variates across regions and urban-rural adjusted odds ratios within each. Smoking inside the home was assessed along with attitudes toward smoking in bars, casinos, playgrounds, cars, and cars with kids. Urban respondents were significantly more supportive of all SHS policies: (e.g. smoking in bars [57.9% vs. 51.4%]; support for kids in cars [94.8% vs. 92.5%]. Greatest difference between urban-rural residents was in Mid-Atlantic (bar restrictions) and Southeast (home bans): almost 10% less supportive. Logistic regression confirmed rural residents least likely, overall, to support SHS in homes (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.81); in cars (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95), on playgrounds (OR = 0.88, 95% CI.83, 0.94) and in bars OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85, 0.92), when controlling for demographics and smoking status. South Central rural residents were significantly less likely to support SHS policies-home bans, smoking in cars with kids, on playgrounds, in bars and casinos; while Heartland rural residents were significantly more supportive of policies restricting smoking in cars, cars with kids and on playgrounds. Southeast and South Central had lowest policy score with no comprehensive state-level SHS policies. Understanding differences is important to target interventions to reduce exposure to SHS and related health disparities.

AB - Significant disparities exist between rural-urban U.S. populations. Besides higher smoking rates, rural Americans are less likely to be protected from SHS. Few studies focus across all regions, obscuring regional-level differences. This study compares support for SHS restrictions across all HHS regions. Data: 2014/15 TUS-CPS; respondents (n = 228,967): 47,805 were rural residents and 181,162 urban. We examined bi-variates across regions and urban-rural adjusted odds ratios within each. Smoking inside the home was assessed along with attitudes toward smoking in bars, casinos, playgrounds, cars, and cars with kids. Urban respondents were significantly more supportive of all SHS policies: (e.g. smoking in bars [57.9% vs. 51.4%]; support for kids in cars [94.8% vs. 92.5%]. Greatest difference between urban-rural residents was in Mid-Atlantic (bar restrictions) and Southeast (home bans): almost 10% less supportive. Logistic regression confirmed rural residents least likely, overall, to support SHS in homes (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.81); in cars (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95), on playgrounds (OR = 0.88, 95% CI.83, 0.94) and in bars OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85, 0.92), when controlling for demographics and smoking status. South Central rural residents were significantly less likely to support SHS policies-home bans, smoking in cars with kids, on playgrounds, in bars and casinos; while Heartland rural residents were significantly more supportive of policies restricting smoking in cars, cars with kids and on playgrounds. Southeast and South Central had lowest policy score with no comprehensive state-level SHS policies. Understanding differences is important to target interventions to reduce exposure to SHS and related health disparities.

KW - Disparities

KW - Policy

KW - Rural

KW - Secondhand smoke

KW - Tobacco control

KW - TUS-CPS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053753218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053753218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.014

DO - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.014

M3 - Article

VL - 116

SP - 157

EP - 165

JO - Preventive Medicine

JF - Preventive Medicine

SN - 0091-7435

ER -