Cargando…

A thematic content analysis of 2010–2015 state tobacco control legislation in the United States: Bill rationales and priority populations

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco use causes numerous types of cancers, heart diseases, and chronic illnesses, and is responsible for nearly 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually. This study assessed whether tobacco control laws introduced in state legislatures between 2010 and 2015 provided a r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kong, Amanda Y., Qingzi Tao, Vivian, Golden, Shelley D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10570700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37840595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102446
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Tobacco use causes numerous types of cancers, heart diseases, and chronic illnesses, and is responsible for nearly 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually. This study assessed whether tobacco control laws introduced in state legislatures between 2010 and 2015 provided a rationale for the proposed bill and/or specified priority population groups, and we then examined emerging themes in the text that did so. METHODS: Using LexisNexis® State Net®, we identified tobacco control bills introduced in all states and coded their bill rationales and population category. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis on a sample of bills with rationales or specified populations. RESULTS: Of the 2815 tobacco control bills introduced in state legislatures in the analysis period, 422 (15.0%) included a bill rationale, and 1309 (46.5%) specified at least one priority population. Four overarching themes emerged: 1) Addressing tobacco-related health harms and financial costs incurred to society; 2) Protecting the public from tobacco-related harms as a government responsibility; 3) Providing services to priority populations; 4) Exempting or preempting some population groups and localities. CONCLUSIONS: Rationalizing tobacco control legislation by focusing on both health and cost implications was a key feature of tobacco policy bill text we analyzed; given the history of this approach, it is likely to remain so in the future. Our study may serve as a benchmark for tracking current and future tobacco control legislation to examine whether there is a growth in prioritizing populations experiencing unjust burdens of tobacco use and related disease.