OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantitatively examine the pattern of, and socioeconomic factors associated with, adoption of clean indoor air ordinances in Appalachia. METHODS: We collected and reviewed clean indoor air ordinances in Appalachian communities in 6 states and rated the ordinances for completeness of coverage in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. Additionally, we computed a strength score to measure coverage in 7 locations. We fit mixed-effects models to determine whether the presence of a comprehensive ordinance and the ordinance strength were related to community socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: Of the 332 communities included in the analysis, fewer than 20% had adopted a comprehensive workplace, restaurant, or bar ordinance. Most ordinances were weak, achieving on average only 43% of the total possible points. Communities with a higher unemployment rate were less likely and those with a higher education level were more likely to have a strong ordinance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of residents in these communities are not protected from secondhand smoke. Efforts to pass strong statewide clean indoor air laws should take priority over local initiatives in these states.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantitatively examine the pattern of, and socioeconomic factors associated with, adoption of clean indoor air ordinances in Appalachia. METHODS: We collected and reviewed clean indoor air ordinances in Appalachian communities in 6 states and rated the ordinances for completeness of coverage in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. Additionally, we computed a strength score to measure coverage in 7 locations. We fit mixed-effects models to determine whether the presence of a comprehensive ordinance and the ordinance strength were related to community socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: Of the 332 communities included in the analysis, fewer than 20% had adopted a comprehensive workplace, restaurant, or bar ordinance. Most ordinances were weak, achieving on average only 43% of the total possible points. Communities with a higher unemployment rate were less likely and those with a higher education level were more likely to have a strong ordinance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of residents in these communities are not protected from secondhand smoke. Efforts to pass strong statewide clean indoor air laws should take priority over local initiatives in these states.
Authors: J F Chriqui; M Frosh; R C Brownson; D M Shelton; R C Sciandra; R Hobart; P H Fisher; R el Arculli; M H Alciati Journal: Tob Control Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Amanda Fallin; Robert Zuercher; Mary Kay Rayens; Sarah Adkins; Nancy York; Ellen J Hahn Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Paul L Reiter; Mary E Wewers; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth G Klein; Mira L Katz Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Mary Kay Rayens; Karen M Butler; Amanda T Wiggins; Ganna Kostygina; Ronald E Langley; Ellen J Hahn Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jidong Huang; Brian A King; Stephen D Babb; Xin Xu; Cynthia Hallett; Maggie Hopkins Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mariaelena Gonzalez; Ashley Sanders-Jackson; Anna V Song; Kai-wen Cheng; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 9.308