OBJECTIVE: To identify the level of effort state tobacco control programmes and partners have expended on interventions recommended by the community guide and how those efforts have changed over time between 1999 and 2004. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: State tobacco control partners, including the state health department, voluntary agencies and tobacco control coalitions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We used the Strength of Tobacco Control survey responses in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to calculate the mean proportion of state tobacco control partners working on recommended interventions and subsequently analysed changes in effort over time. RESULTS: The proportion of state tobacco control partners working to promote clean indoor air legislation remained at more than 70% in all three years. The proportion working to increase taxes on tobacco rose significantly between 1999 and 2002 (from 54% to 70%), and those working to reduce patient costs for tobacco cessation treatments never exceeded 31% in any year. Use of mass media targeting youths decreased significantly in all years (from 40% to 32% to 26%), and the proportion of state tobacco control partners participating in a quitline has increased steadily and significantly in all years (from 24% to 36% to 41%). The level of effort in each area varied widely between states and over time. CONCLUSIONS: State tobacco control partners are implementing evidence based interventions, but more focus is needed on the tobacco cessation and mass media campaign components of comprehensive tobacco control programmes.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the level of effort state tobacco control programmes and partners have expended on interventions recommended by the community guide and how those efforts have changed over time between 1999 and 2004. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: State tobacco control partners, including the state health department, voluntary agencies and tobacco control coalitions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We used the Strength of Tobacco Control survey responses in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to calculate the mean proportion of state tobacco control partners working on recommended interventions and subsequently analysed changes in effort over time. RESULTS: The proportion of state tobacco control partners working to promote clean indoor air legislation remained at more than 70% in all three years. The proportion working to increase taxes on tobacco rose significantly between 1999 and 2002 (from 54% to 70%), and those working to reduce patient costs for tobacco cessation treatments never exceeded 31% in any year. Use of mass media targeting youths decreased significantly in all years (from 40% to 32% to 26%), and the proportion of state tobacco control partners participating in a quitline has increased steadily and significantly in all years (from 24% to 36% to 41%). The level of effort in each area varied widely between states and over time. CONCLUSIONS: State tobacco control partners are implementing evidence based interventions, but more focus is needed on the tobacco cessation and mass media campaign components of comprehensive tobacco control programmes.