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
N1 - Funding Information:
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R21CA205589 . The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. FAS and MEW led the study conceptualization and secured the research funding. ET and DC conducted the analysis and produced the tables and figure. FAS, ET, DC, MEW and ND were responsible for the interpretation of data. FAS drafted the manuscript with assistance on the Methods section from ET and DC. MEW, EAM, ND, MR and KG reviewed the manuscript and were responsible for providing comments and making critical revisions. KG was responsible for administrative, technical, and material support. All authors gave final approval to the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
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 - TUS-CPS
KW - Tobacco control
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
C2 - 30261241
AN - SCOPUS:85053753218
SN - 0091-7435
VL - 116
SP - 157
EP - 165
JO - Preventive Medicine
JF - Preventive Medicine
ER -