首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >Differential Relationship between Tobacco Control Policies and U.S. Adult Current Smoking by Poverty
【2h】

Differential Relationship between Tobacco Control Policies and U.S. Adult Current Smoking by Poverty

机译:烟草控制政策与美国成年人当前吸烟与贫困之间的区别关系

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The study’s purpose was to identify differences in the relationship between tobacco control policies and smoking by poverty. We matched state smoke-free air law coverage (SFALs), tobacco control funding (TCF), and cigarette taxes with individual current smoking and demographics from supplements to the Current Population Survey (1985–2015). We regressed (logistic) smoking on policy variables, poverty (<138% of poverty line versus ≥138% of poverty line), interactions of policy and poverty, and covariates, presenting beta coefficients instead of odds ratios because it is difficult to interpret interactions using odds ratios (they are ratios of odds ratios). We coded SFALs as (1) proportion of state covered by 100% workplace, restaurant and bar laws (SFAL-All) or (2) proportion of state covered by workplace laws (SFAL-WP) and proportion covered by restaurant or bar laws (SFAL-RB). In the SFAL-All model, SFAL-All (Beta coeff: −0.03, 95% CI: −0.06, −0.002), tax (Coeff: −0.06, 95% CI: −0.07, −0.05), and TCF (Coeff: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.01, −0.001) were associated with less smoking. In this model, the interaction of SFAL-All by poverty was significant (Coeff: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.13). In the SFAL-WP/RB model, SFAL-RB (Coeff: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.08, −0.02), tax (Coeff: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.06, −0.04), and TCF (Coeff: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.01, −0.00) were significant. In the same model, SFAL-WP (Coeff: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.15), SFAL-RB (Coeff: −0.14, 95% CI: −0.19, −0.09), and TCF (Coeff: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.02) interacted with poverty. Tax by poverty was of borderline significance in this model (Coeff = 0.02, 95% CI: −0.00, 0.04, = 0.050). Among adults, SFALs, TCF, and tax were associated with less current smoking, and SFALs and TCF had differential relationships with smoking by poverty.
机译:这项研究的目的是找出烟草控制政策与贫困吸烟之间关系的差异。我们将州无烟空气法律覆盖率(SFAL),烟草控制资金(TCF)和香烟税与当前人口调查(1985-2015年)补编中的个人当前吸烟和人口统计进行了匹配。我们对(变量)吸烟进行了政策变量,贫困(贫困线的<138%与贫困线的≥138%的回归)(后勤),政策与贫困之间的相互作用以及协变量的回归分析,因为很难解释相互作用,因此呈现β系数而不是优势比使用比值比(它们是比值比)。我们将SFAL编码为(1)受100%工作场所,饭店和酒吧法律覆盖的州比例(SFAL-All)或(2)受工作场所法律覆盖的州比例(SFAL-WP)和受饭店或酒吧法律覆盖的比例( SFAL-RB)。在SFAL-All模型中,SFAL-All(Beta coeff:-0.03,95%CI:-0.06,-0.002),税收(Coeff:-0.06,95%CI:-0.07,-0.05)和TCF(Coeff :-0.01,95%CI:-0.01,-0.001)与吸烟减少有关。在该模型中,SFAL-All与贫困之间的相互作用非常显着(Coeff:0.08,95%CI:0.02,0.13)。在SFAL-WP / RB模型中,SFAL-RB(Coeff:-0.05,95%CI:-0.08,-0.02),税收(Coeff:-0.05,95%CI:-0.06,-0.04)和TCF( Coeff:-0.01,95%CI:-0.01,-0.00)是显着的。在同一模型中,SFAL-WP(Coeff:0.09,95%CI:0.03,0.15),SFAL-RB(Coeff:-0.14,95%CI:-0.19,-0.09)和TCF(Coeff:0.01,95) %CI:0.00、0.02)与贫困互动。在此模型中,贫困征税具有重要意义(Coeff = 0.02,95%CI:-0.00,0.04,= 0.050)。在成年人中,SFAL,TCF和税收与当前吸烟量减少相关,而SFAL和TCF与贫困导致的吸烟之间存在差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号