Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Cindy Tworek, PhD, MPH¹, Anna Sandoval, MPH², Sandy Slater, PhD², Mecca Thompson, JD², and Frank Chaluopka, PhD². (1) Center for Tobacco Independence, 22 Bramhall Street, Portland, ME 04102, 207-662-3279, tworec@mmc.org, (2) Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1747 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL 60608

Objective: SmokeLess States (SLS) began funding in 1994 for state-level coalitions to reduce tobacco use and strengthen tobacco control legislation and regulation. As a component of SLS evaluation, a legislative coding system was developed to obtain measures of impact for SLS coalitions on tobacco control policy outcomes, tracking tobacco-related bills and progress. Methods: Tobacco-related bills from January 2002 to December 2003 were downloaded via StateNet and Westlaw. An SLS evaluation research team developed coding categories with well-defined criteria, subsequently coding groups of tobacco bills and validating categories and criteria to establish coding reliability. Identified versions were coded and Cohen's Kappa was used to report percent agreement, measuring inter-rater reliability. Descriptive analyses included 15 tobacco-related categories, excluding categories for ‘no tobacco language' and ‘miscellaneous', and multiple categories were coded as applicable. Results: 7,838 tobacco-related bill versions were identified among 15 coding categories. ‘Master Settlement Agreement' (21.4%), ‘tax' (21.2%), and ‘budget' (18.6%) had the highest percentages of coded bills, while ‘investment' (0.1%), ‘smokers rights' (0.2%), and ‘tort' (0.6%) had the lowest percentages. California and Florida were among the states with the highest number of tobacco-related bill versions identified. Cumulative kappa was .83 among researchers indicating ‘almost perfect agreement' for 26 coding samples, including 520 bill versions. Detailed coding categories were developed to further track legislative outcomes for smoke-free air, tax, and Medicaid bills, as special interest coalition categories. Conclusion: Tobacco-related legislation can be identified, targeted, and tracked to help understand policy outcomes, focusing efforts and resources among policy advocates and coalitions.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe the volume of tobacco-related bills and their topic areas introduced in state legislatures;
• Describe the volume of tobacco-related legislation introduced by specific states;
• Discuss detailed coding of tobacco legislation targeted for special interest by state coalitions, such as smoke-free air, tax, and Medicaid categories;
• Recognize tobacco-related topic areas and legislation introduced and enacted as policy outcomes

Keywords: Tobacco Legislation, Tobacco Policy

Related Web page: www.impacteen.org/states/default.htm

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No