Index for US State Tobacco Control Initial Outcomes

Elizabeth A. Gilpin1, Frances A. Stillman2, Anne M. Hartman2, James T. Gibson3 and John P. Pierce1

1 Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of California, San Diego, Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA.
2 Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
3 Information Management Services, Silver Spring, MD.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Public health tobacco control efforts have increasingly targeted communities in addition to individuals. Before population smoking decreases, effectiveness might be detected from initial outcomes reflecting these efforts, such as higher cigarette prices or more workplace and home smoking restrictions. Presumably, these initial outcomes will eventually influence smoking behavior. State-specific estimates of percentages of the population working or living under smoking bans are available from the 1992–1993 tobacco use supplement to the Current Population Survey, conducted annually by the US Bureau of the Census. In addition, the tobacco industry reports the average state cigarette price yearly. The authors constructed a tobacco control initial outcomes index (IOI) by using values of these variables for each state and correlated it with state-specific adult (aged >=25 years) and youth (aged 15–24 years) smoking prevalence computed from the Current Population Survey and per capita cigarette consumption data computed from sales and Census Bureau data. Both adult smoking prevalence (r = -0.70) and per capita consumption (r = -0.73) were significantly correlated with the IOI; youth smoking prevalence correlated less well (r = -0.34). Although the analysis is not definitive, deseasonalized 1983–1997 consumption trends for IOI-based tertile groups were divergent beginning in 1993, with the high IOI group showing the greatest decrease. A high relative IOI index may be predictive of future smoking decreases and should be considered when tobacco control efforts are evaluated. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:727–38.

outcome assessment (health care); public health; smoking; tobacco

Abbreviations: CPS, Current Population Survey; IOI, initial outcomes index


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There is increased recognition that smoking behavior is strongly influenced by the social environment (1Go). Thus, tobacco control efforts are now generally focused on entire communities in addition to the traditional approaches aimed at individuals. Community-based efforts generally take the form of comprehensive US state-level tobacco control programs (1GoGoGoGoGoGo–7Go). Such programs require careful evaluation so that they can be improved and to justify the level of resources committed to them. Since evaluative efforts involve comparisons across states to account for secular trends that occur independently of any specific program, an index to rank states according to their tobacco control activity would be useful (8Go).

Comprehensive tobacco control programs include resources (both monetary and human) to employ a wide variety of efforts aimed at influencing the social environment. These efforts include 1) working to educate the public (via paid mass media programs, public service announcements, or media advocacy), 2) encouraging enactment of new legislation or policies (to increase tobacco taxes, create smoke-free workplaces, or regulate tobacco advertising), 3) fostering smoking cessation (by increasing awareness of and access to existing programs or developing new cessation methods or programs), and 4) advocating for increased enforcement of existing laws (including youth access laws or laws restricting smoking). The immediate results of these tobacco control efforts are what we have labeled "initial outcomes." These outcomes can be quantified and can serve as early indicators of tobacco control efforts (8Go). Examples of initial outcomes include greater population exposure to antitobacco messages or news coverage, increased tobacco taxes, stronger laws for regulating smoking in public places, more smokers receiving smoking cessation assistance, increased compliance checks, and assessment of penalties to prevent illegal tobacco sales to minors or for violations of workplace smoking restrictions. Initial outcomes can be viewed as the first steps along a continuum of change that ultimately should result in reduced tobacco use by the general population. To rank states according to these initial outcomes requires uniform measures for each state, some assurance that these outcomes can influence smoking behavior, and some variability in the measures among states.

Appropriate measures currently are not available for all of these initial outcomes. However, all states include tobacco excise taxes in the retail price paid by the consumer, and each year the tobacco industry uniformly reports the price of cigarettes in each state to the Federal Trade Commission. The average price per pack differs considerably among states, and there is ample evidence that price affects smoking behavior (9Go, 10Go). Community concern about the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke has led to local and statewide ordinances restricting smoking in public places as well as in the workplace (11Go, 12Go). Adoption of workplace smoking restrictions has not been uniform across all states (11Go, 12Go), but when these restrictions are in effect, they have been shown to modify smoking behavior (13GoGoGoGoGo–18Go). Concern about the health consequences of secondhand smoke also can lead to considerable pressure against exposure to smoke in one's personal environment (19Go). One form of this pressure is imposition of home smoking restrictions, and complete home smoking bans have also been associated with smoking behavior (20Go). State-level measures of the proportion of the population working or living under smoking bans are available from the tobacco use supplement to the Current Population Surveys (CPS) of 1992 and 1993. These measures vary considerably. As standard measures become available for other initial outcomes, they may also prove to be candidates for inclusion in the index. For the present study, we focused on three initial outcomes: cigarette price, workplace smoking bans, and home smoking bans.

We ranked the 50 US states and the District of Columbia (referred to in this paper as the 51 states) according to each of these three initial outcomes; in this paper, we report the correlation of each outcome with common measures of smoking behavior: per capita cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence. We also created z scores for the initial outcomes, summed each of the standardized variables to form an index, and correlated the resulting initial outcomes index (IOI) with the smoking behavior measures. Finally, we divided the 51 states into three groups determined by IOI tertiles and examined the group mean smoking prevalence and trends in per capita cigarette consumption.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Data sources
Current Population Surveys.
Data were gathered from three CPS surveys (September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993) that included a special supplement on tobacco use. The US Bureau of the Census continuously conducts the CPS to monitor the labor force, covering the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of persons aged >=15 years in the United States (21Go). These household surveys select a stratified probability sample of clusters of households identified from the Census Bureau and other sources (22Go). The CPS design calls for surveying about 56,000 households each month, and each household is part of a panel that is interviewed eight times over a 16-month period. All respondents to the 1992–1993 tobacco use supplements were interviewed only once in September 1992, January 1993, or May 1993. About a quarter of the interviews were conducted in person (first or fifth time in a panel); the remainder were conducted by telephone (second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, or eighth time in a panel). Except for the tobacco use supplement, for which every effort was made to interview each person aged >=15 years residing in the household, one knowledgeable member responded for all others. To maximize the proportion of self-respondents to the tobacco use supplement, three attempts were made to reach each respondent, either in person or by telephone depending on the household's panel order, before a proxy interview with another household member was accepted (22Go). Response rates for the tobacco use supplement for eligible CPS respondents were 88.5, 89.1, and 86.1 percent for September, January, and May, respectively. Overall, 82 percent of supplement respondents for smoking status (prevalence) were self-respondents.

Because the public-use data files for these three surveys include weighting variables for all respondents (n = 291,054) and for self-respondents (n = 237,733), population estimates could be determined. The weights are computed to be consistent with 1990 US Census totals based on state population and are representative of the US population by gender, age, and race/ethnicity distributions. Persons for whom data were missing (<1 percent) for smoking status were omitted from the analysis.

Cigarette price.
Each November, The Tobacco Institute publishes the weighted average price per pack of cigarettes for each US state and the District of Columbia (23Go). The price analyzed includes state and federal (but not local) excise taxes and state (but not local) sales tax. The weighting reflects the brand mix, whether the cigarettes were purchased by the pack or the carton, and the type of store in which the cigarettes were purchased. However, the weights are national rather than state specific. We did not attempt to adjust cigarette price by a cost-of-living indicator for each state because there is no agreed-upon method for accomplishing such an adjustment.

Cigarette sales.
The Tobacco Institute also compiles data and reports on tax payments from all packs of cigarettes removed from wholesale warehouses to retail outlets within each state (24Go). The reporting unit is the number of cigarette packs on which taxes were paid in any given month. The present analysis included data from February 1983 through March 1997. While consumption estimates obtained from this source are subject to monthly and seasonal variations that are business related rather than reflect variation in consumption patterns, these data are gathered uniformly across states and are the usual source for estimates of national per capita cigarette consumption. This data source is used by both the US Surgeon General's Office for its reports on smoking and health and by the US Department of Agriculture (25Go).

Measures of smoking behavior
Smoking prevalence.
CPS respondents were asked, "Have you (or the person responded for) smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your (his or her) entire life?" Those with "yes" responses were considered ever smokers and were asked a second question: "Do you (or the person responded for) now smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all?"

We computed the percentage of current smokers (defined as those who smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and indicated at the time of the survey that they smoked either every day or some days) among adults aged >24 years and also considered the percentage of current smokers among young people aged 15–24 years. Both self- and proxy reports of smoking status were included in the determination of smoking prevalence.

Per capita cigarette consumption.
Changes in total cigarette sales within a state may not be related to changes in smoking behavior if the population of that state has changed. We estimated per capita consumption for a given state in any given year by using US Bureau of the Census estimates for the state population aged >=18 years. We followed the Surgeon General's age criterion of 18 years (9Go) because only about 1 percent of the cigarettes sold in the United States are smoked by people aged <=18 years (26Go). We used decade US Census population data computed as of April 1, 1980 and 1990 and supplemental within-decade estimates computed as of July 1 of each year (27Go, 28Go). To obtain monthly estimates of state populations, we interpolated from regression lines fitted to the yearly census data.

Our per capita consumption estimates were based on the total number of packs removed from wholesale warehouses in a given month divided by the population estimate for that month. Since retail outlets appear to stock up on cigarettes in the last month of both the fiscal and calendar years, we partially removed this source of variation by considering bimonthly averages (e.g., December/January, February/March). To further distinguish the underlying or deseasonalized trends, we applied the SABL procedure (available in the statistical package S-Plus) to the bimonthly data (29Go, 30Go). As a point estimate of per capita cigarette consumption for 1992–1993, we considered the mean per capita consumption for the 10-month period from August/September 1992 through April/May 1993, a period that encompassed the CPS tobacco use supplements.

Measures of tobacco control initial outcomes
Cigarette price.
We used the mean of the weighted average price of cigarettes for November 1992 and November 1993 to adjust for price fluctuations during the period corresponding to the interval during which CPS data were collected. During this period, 16 states increased their tobacco excise taxes (13–65 cents), and the federal excise tax on cigarettes increased by 4 cents on January 1, 1993. However, in most states, the weighted average per-pack price of cigarettes was 5–15 cents lower in November 1993 than it was in November 1992 as a result of a tobacco industry price cut for premium brands of cigarettes (31Go).

Workplace smoking bans.
CPS tobacco use supplement self-respondents were asked, "Which of these best describes the area in which you work most of the time?" A response indicating that the person worked indoors and outside the home and was not self-employed led to a further question, "Does your place of work have an official policy that restricts smoking in any way?" Those who answered "yes" were then asked, "Which of these best describes your place of work's smoking policy for work areas?" and "Which of these best describes your place of work's smoking policy for indoor public or common areas?" Those who reported that smoking was "not allowed" (one of the response choices) in any work areas and was "not allowed" in any public areas were considered to be covered by a workplace smoking ban. State workplace smoking ban status was calculated as the percentage of self-respondent ever smokers aged >=15 years who were eligible to be asked the questions regarding a workplace smoking ban. Percentage of ever smokers was used because smoking bans would be more likely to influence current and former smokers than never smokers. The only possible behavioral effect on never smokers would be to prevent smoking uptake in some young people (aged 15–24 years) by making it difficult for them to establish nicotine tolerance. Current smokers may modify their smoking behavior in response to bans, and former smokers may be less likely to relapse if they work where they cannot smoke. Recent former smokers may also have quit in response to smoking bans.

Home smoking bans.
CPS tobacco use supplement self-respondents were also asked about the existence of smoking restrictions in their homes: "Which statement best describes the rules about smoking in your home?" We considered a home smoking ban to be in place if the respondent indicated that "no one is allowed to smoke anywhere." As defined for workplace smoking bans, state home smoking ban status was taken as the percentage of self-respondent ever smokers aged >=15 years that reported a home smoking ban. Since all household persons aged >=15 years responded to the full tobacco use supplement, discrepant reporting was possible about the existence of a home smoking ban. Although agreement concerning the existence of a home smoking ban was high, it was not perfect.

Statistical analysis
For each of the three index factors—cigarette price per pack, workplace smoking bans among ever smokers, and home smoking bans among ever smokers—we computed z scores for each of the 51 states. Next, we summed the z scores for the three factors to form a tobacco control IOI and computed a Cronbach's alpha coefficient (32Go). The IOI was then correlated (Pearson's) with adult and youth smoking prevalence and the point estimate of per capita cigarette consumption. Correlation coefficients were also computed for the index component variable z scores among themselves and with prevalence and the point estimate of per capita cigarette consumption.

Finally, we classified the states into three groups based on tertiles (n = 17 each) of the IOI. Mean smoking prevalence and per capita cigarette consumption (from the point estimates for each state) among the three groups of 17 states were compared by using analysis of variance with correction for multiple comparisons (two-tailed Bonferroni's method). As described above, we also plotted the bimonthly raw per capita data from February/March 1984 to February/March 1997 for each tertile group along with the deseasonalized trends.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Tobacco control IOI
Cigarette prices varied considerably among the 51 states; they ranged from a high of 229.7 cents per pack in Hawaii to a low of 147.6 cents per pack in Kentucky. The mean cigarette price over all 51 states was 184.4 cents per pack. The percentage of ever smokers living in households with a home smoking ban varied more than threefold, from a high of 42.2 percent in Utah to a low of 12.5 percent in Kentucky. The overall mean was 26.6 percent. Finally, the percentage of ever smokers working in an indoor setting with reported workplace smoking bans also varied by about a factor of 2.5, from a high of 61.1 percent in Washington State to a low of 24.9 percent in Kentucky; overall, the mean was 46.6 percent. When the z scores for all three factors (cigarette price per pack, workplace smoking bans, home smoking bans) were summed, Washington State had the highest IOI, indicating the most evidence of tobacco control activity. California was a close second, Utah was third (despite its relatively lower average cigarette price), and Kentucky ranked by far the lowest. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the IOI was 0.78.

Table 1 shows the correlations among the index factors' z scores that comprise the IOI and for each factor with adult smoking prevalence, youth smoking prevalence, and the point estimate of per capita cigarette consumption. The relative level of ever smokers in each state who were indoor workers with workplace smoking bans was highly correlated with the relative level of ever smokers with home smoking bans. The correlations of these factors with cigarette price were not as strong. All three index factors showed a significant relation to the outcome measures of adult smoking prevalence and per capita cigarette consumption. However, the relations were weaker for youth smoking prevalence, and only the correlation of home smoking bans with youth smoking prevalence was statistically significant. Of note is that price correlated highly with per capita cigarette consumption but less strongly with adult smoking prevalence.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Correlations among tobacco control activity factors and for tobacco control activity factor z scores with smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption, United States, 1992–1993

 
Correlation of the IOI with prevalence and consumption
The IOI scores for the states were highly correlated with the statewide prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged >=25 years (r = -0.70, p < 0.0001, figure 1) but were less well correlated with the prevalence of smoking among young people aged 15–24 years (r = -0.34, p < 0.05, figure 2). There was also a strong and significant relation between the IOI and the point estimate of per capita cigarette consumption (r = -0.73, p < 0.0001, figure 3). When Kentucky was omitted from the correlation analysis, the correlations of IOI with adult smoking prevalence, youth smoking prevalence, and per capita cigarette consumption were -0.64 (p < 0.0001), -0.27 (p = 0.056), and -0.67 (p < 0.0001), respectively.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 1. Correlation among US states of the tobacco control initial outcomes index with adult (aged >=25 years) smoking prevalence, 1992–1993.

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 2. Correlation among US states of the tobacco control initial outcomes index with youth (aged 15–24 years) smoking prevalence, 1992–1993.

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 3. Correlation among US states of the tobacco control initial outcomes index with per capita cigarette consumption (number of packs smoked per month), 1992–1993.

 
Grouping of states by IOI tertiles
Tables 2Go4 show the US states in each of the three tertile groups and the data used to determine the state z score, the resultant z score, and the final index, which is the sum of the z scores for each of the three factors. Also displayed are estimates of the prevalence of smoking in individual states computed from the 1992–1993 CPS data and the point estimates of per capita cigarette consumption. At the bottom of each table is the mean value for each of the index factors and the smoking behavior measures (refer to the Materials and Methods section).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Highest tertile group in the tobacco control initial outcomes index, United States, 1992–1993

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Middle tertile group in the tobacco control initial outcomes index, United States, 1992–1993

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Lowest tertile group in the tobacco control initial outcomes index, United States, 1992–1993

 
Figure 4 plots the state-specific estimates of smoking prevalence for adults (aged >=25 years) in the states in each tertile group. The dashed line shows the overall prevalence estimate for this age group in the United States as 24.0 percent. The mean adult smoking prevalence was not significantly lower for the states in the highest IOI tertile (23.3 percent) compared with the prevalence over all states in the middle tertile (24.2 percent), but the smoking prevalence estimates for both the highest and middle tertile groups were significantly lower than the prevalence estimate for the lowest tertile group (26.9 percent). In the highest IOI group, the state-specific smoking prevalence ranged from a high of 28.0 percent in Maine to a low of 17.5 percent in Utah. The smoking prevalence estimates for five states in this group were higher than the overall US prevalence estimate. In the middle group, prevalence ranged from a high of 29.1 percent in Nevada to a low of 21.4 percent in Massachusetts. In 10 states in this group, the prevalence estimate was higher than the overall US average. The state-specific prevalence in the lowest group ranged from a high of 32.1 percent in Kentucky to a low of 23.4 percent in Iowa. In 15 states in this group, the smoking prevalence estimates were higher than the overall US average. The mean adult smoking prevalences for the highest and middle tertiles were significantly different from that of the lowest tertile (overall analysis of variance, followed by pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05).



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 4. Adult smoking prevalence in each US state (and the District of Columbia) included in the three tertile groups of the tobacco control initial outcomes index, 1992–1993. AL, Alabama; AK, Alaska; AZ, Arizona; AR, Arkansas; CA, California; CO, Colorado; CT, Connecticut; DE, Delaware; DC, District of Columbia; FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; HI, Hawaii; ID, Idaho; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; IA, Iowa; KS, Kansas; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; ME, Maine; MD, Maryland; MA, Massachusetts; MI, Michigan; MN, Minnesota; MS, Mississippi; MO, Missouri; MT, Montana; NE, Nebraska; NV, Nevada; NH, New Hampshire; NJ, New Jersey; NM, New Mexico; NY, New York; NC, North Carolina; ND, North Dakota; OH, Ohio; OK, Oklahoma; OR, Oregon; PA, Pennsylvania; RI, Rhode Island; SC, South Carolina; SD, South Dakota; TN, Tennessee; TX, Texas; UT, Utah; VT, Vermont; VA, Virginia; WA, Washington; WV, West Virginia; WI, Wisconsin; WY, Wyoming.

 
As the relatively weak correlations in table 1 suggest, the tertile group means for youth smoking prevalence were not significantly different, and prevalence varied considerably within groups. For instance, in the lowest tertile group (table 4), youth smoking prevalence ranged from a high of 26.4 percent in West Virginia to a low of 14.1 percent in Mississippi. California and Utah, both in the highest tertile group (table 2), were the only other two states whose youth smoking prevalences were lower than that in Mississippi. The prevalence for Maine, also in the highest tertile group, was 25.5 percent, close to that for West Virginia.

In the highest tertile group, per capita cigarette consumption ranged from a low of 6.3 packs per month in Hawaii to a high of 12.7 packs per month in Vermont, with a mean of 9.1. In the middle tertile group, per capita consumption ranged from a low of 7.9 packs per month in New Mexico to a high of 16.2 packs per month in New Hampshire, for an overall mean of 10.5. Finally, in the lowest tertile group, consumption ranged from 9.3 packs per month in Montana to 18.0 packs per month in Kentucky, for a mean of 12.2. The mean per capita consumption for the highest tertile group was statistically significantly different from the two lowest tertile groups (overall analysis of variance, followed by pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05).

Figure 5 shows the bimonthly raw per capita cigarette consumption data and the SABL deseasonalized trends for the three groups of states from February/March 1983 to February/March 1997. Before 1991, per capita cigarette consumption in the tertile groups seemed to be different, but the downward trends were roughly parallel. Between 1991 and 1994, the downward trends for the highest and middle groups continued, but the downward trend for the lowest IOI group seemed to diminish. After 1994, the trend for the lowest tertile group indicated an increase in consumption, the middle tertile group no longer showed a downward trend, and the trend for the highest group was still downward.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 5. Trends in per capita cigarette consumption for US states in each tertile group of the 1992–1993 tobacco control initial outcomes index. Dotted lines, bimonthly raw data; solid lines, deseasonalized trends obtained by applying the SABL procedure to the bimonthly data (29Go, 30Go).

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Our analyses indicate that tobacco control initial outcomes are substantially and inversely correlated with smoking prevalence and per capita cigarette consumption. It is possible that states that have a high level of tobacco control advocacy produce initial outcomes that affect smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption, but it also may be the case that states that have lower levels of prevalence and consumption are politically more able to advocate for tobacco control policy that produces initial outcomes. The diverging trends for tobacco consumption in the tertile groups determined from the IOI after 1992–1993, the time period for the data used in the correlation analysis, suggest that the level of initial outcomes does influence final outcomes rather than vice versa. A more comprehensive time-series analysis that accounts for secular trend and population differences is needed to demonstrate that initial outcomes lead to lower consumption over time. Nonetheless, when one state is compared with others in the evaluation of its tobacco control program, it would be important to know each state's IOI standing.

There were significant correlations among the IOI components, which is to be expected, since most current tobacco control programs use a shotgun approach. The multiple interventions may exhibit some degree of synergy. For instance, a smoker who works where smoking is banned may be more likely to agree to a smoking ban at home. When additional standard and widely available measures for initial outcomes become available, it is likely that they will correlate with these components and among themselves. It will be important to keep the index parsimonious and add only those variables that have been demonstrated to be related to smoking behavior and that vary considerably among the states. Other possible additional factors include assessment of actual state or local antitobacco legislation and a measure of exposure to antitobacco-related media (8Go).

Although there were significant and strong correlations between both the IOI components and the overall index with per capita cigarette consumption and adult (aged >=25 years) smoking prevalence, only home smoking bans were correlated with smoking prevalence for young people aged 15–24-years. The youth smoking prevalence estimates were less precise than the adult ones because of small state-level sample sizes. Also, proxy reports of smoking status for younger people may be more likely to be in error, because more people in this age group are occasional smokers (33Go). Both of these factors may hinder detection of any underlying relation that might exist between prevalence and workplace smoking bans or cigarette price. The fact that only about 16 percent of the younger people in our study were indoor workers further limited the possibility of detecting a relation. The lack of a significant relation between price and youth smoking prevalence is more difficult to explain. Most evidence of a price effect on youth smoking comes from econometric analyses of cross-sectional data (34GoGo–36Go). A number of research projects are currently investigating this issue further, some in the setting of multistate longitudinal studies. Perhaps it will be essential that initial outcomes more directly related to youth smoking, such as success in restricting access or tobacco advertising and promotions, will be required to develop a useful index for the younger population.

We considered using different definitions of tobacco control initial outcomes in the index. The amount of new state excise taxes adopted between 1989 and early 1993 would have been a fairly direct measure of an initial outcome from tobacco control activity. However, the price data we used included both federal and state excise taxes and sales taxes. Furthermore, since the tobacco companies can manipulate the price of cigarettes (31Go), tax increases may not always be reflected in cigarette price. The CPS data provided a reasonably accurate estimation of workplace smoking bans based on workers' self-report of the types of smoking restrictions at their workplace. In the future, information from the National Cancer Institute's State Cancer Legislative Database (12Go) could also be included; this database would provide information concerning the type of state legislation restricting workplace smoking in effect in each state.

Interestingly, as in previous analyses (37Go), current smokers who worked indoors were less likely to report workplace smoking bans (36 percent) than were former or never smokers (both 49 percent). We repeated the entire analysis by considering all indoor workers, regardless of smoking status, and just current smokers (rather than ever smokers), and the results were only slightly different. Another potential definitional problem was an inconsistency in the report of home smoking bans. Reanalyzing the data (counting a report by an ever smoker of a home smoking ban only if all other adults in the home also reported the ban) did not improve the correlation of this variable with smoking prevalence. Because both workplace and home smoking bans might be considered an indication of societal norms rather than a direct influence on smoking behavior, home smoking bans were also analyzed for the entire population, not just for ever smokers. Since there was a very high correlation (r = 0.96) between the two measures, the results changed only slightly. Finally, we examined the percentage of ever smokers in each state with workplace and home smoking bans computed only for those aged >=25 years, which would correspond to the adult population considered in the present study; again, the results changed very little.

As one measure of smoking behavior, we used the number of packs of cigarettes removed from wholesale to retail outlets as a surrogate measure of per capita cigarette consumption. However, some cigarettes sold are probably never smoked, and cigarettes that smokers acquire from other than retail outlets (e.g., military bases, Indian reservations, state or national cross-border smuggling) are not included. Econometric models could potentially account for the impact of these and other factors (e.g., differences in state demographic composition) on consumption (38Go), and such refinements might improve the correlation of per capita consumption with the IOI. When the mean self-reported daily cigarette consumption for smokers included in the CPS was used instead of the sales data as a measure of cigarette consumption in each state, the correlation with the IOI was somewhat lower (r = 0.64, p < 0.0001). As expected, reported daily cigarette consumption and per capita consumption computed from the sales data were substantially correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.0001). We also were concerned that smoking prevalence may vary among states more because of demographic factors than because of tobacco control activity. However, a partial correlation analysis that adjusted for the state population percentages of females, African Americans, and Hispanics and for median age changed the results only slightly.

Despite these potential limitations, the correlations between the tobacco control IOI and the adult smoking prevalence and per capita cigarette consumption are significant, fairly strong, and robust with respect to variations in definition and analysis. The observed trends in per capita consumption (figure 5) support the hypothesis that those states that have more tobacco control initial outcomes are reducing consumption more than states with lower levels of these outcomes. It is interesting that tobacco-growing states (e.g., Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia) were all included in the lowest tertile group, which suggests that if there is significant economic dependence on tobacco, there also may be more resistance to efforts to reduce tobacco use.

Whether the IOI will be associated with changes in state-level adult smoking prevalence must await further data and analyses. However, our findings that price was related more strongly to per capita consumption than to adult smoking prevalence and that the correlation of the IOI with consumption was marginally greater than it was with prevalence suggest that the relation of the IOI to declines in prevalence may be less strong than for consumption. Smokers may take many years to quit successfully (39Go) but respond in the short term to tobacco control interventions by reducing their consumption (40Go).

Ranking of tobacco control activity by the IOI should, over time, prove useful in determining whether statewide tobacco control efforts are producing initial outcomes that should eventually lead to reduced smoking. It is expected that states with the relatively highest IOI scores will eventually see the greatest declines in smoking. Furthermore, low scores may provide an incentive for some states to adopt new tobacco control measures.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Preparation of this article was supported by Cancer Prevention Research Unit grant CA72092, funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. This work was completed during the tenure of Dr. Pierce's established investigatorship award from the American Heart Association.

The authors acknowledge Dr. Barry I. Graubard, Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, for helpful methodological discussions.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. John P. Pierce, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of California, San Diego, Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA 92037-0645 (e-mail: jppierce{at}ucsd.edu).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. National Cancer Institute. Strategies to control tobacco use in the United States. A blueprint for public health action in the 1990s. Smoking and tobacco control monograph 1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1991. (NIH publication no. 92-3316).
  2. Bal DG, Kiser KW, Felton PG, et al. Reducing tobacco consumption in California: development of a statewide anti-tobacco use campaign. JAMA 1990;254:1570–4.
  3. Pierce JP, Evans N, Farkas AJ, et al. Tobacco use in California: an evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1993. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, 1994.
  4. Harris JE, Connolly GN, Brooks D, et al. Cigarette smoking before and after an excise tax increase and an antismoking campaign—Massachusetts, 1990–1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996;45:966–70.[Medline]
  5. Goldsmith MF. AMA office directs smokeLess states. JAMA 1994;271:643.
  6. Institute of Medicine. Growing up tobacco free: preventing nicotine addiction in children and youth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
  7. Manley M, Lynn W, Epps RP, et al. The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study for cancer prevention: an overview. Tob Control 1997;6(suppl 2):S5–11.[Free Full Text]
  8. Stillman F, Hartman A, Graubard B, et al. The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST): conceptual framework and evaluation design. Eval Rev 1999;23:259–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1989. (CDC publication no. 89-8411).
  10. Lewit EM, Coate D. The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking. J Health Econ 1982;1:121–45.[Medline]
  11. US Department of Health and Human Services. Major local tobacco control ordinances in the United States. Smoking and tobacco control monograph 3. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health; 1993. (NIH publication no. 93-3532).
  12. National Cancer Institute, State Cancer Legislative Database (SCLD). (SCLD updates are published quarterly and are available on the World Wide Web: http://dccps.nci.nih.gov/SCLD/oldfiles/default.html).
  13. Borland R, Chapman S, Owen N, et al. Effects of workplace smoking bans on cigarette consumption. Am J Public Health 1990;80:178–80.[Abstract]
  14. Woodruff TJ, Rosbrook B, Pierce J, et al. Lower levels of cigarette consumption found in smoke-free workplaces in California. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1485–93.[Abstract]
  15. Sorensen G, Rigotti N, Rosen A, et al. Effects of a worksite nonsmoking policy: evidence for increased cessation. Am J Public Health 1991;81:202–4.[Abstract]
  16. Jeffery RW, Kelder SH, Forster JL, et al. Restrictive smoking policies in the workplace: effects on smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption. Prev Med 1994;23:78–82.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Patten CA, Gilpin E, Cavin SW, et al. Workplace smoking policy and changes in smoking behavior in California: a suggested association. Tob Control 1995;4:36–41.[Free Full Text]
  18. Stillman FA, Becker DM, Swank RT, et al. Ending smoking at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. An evaluation of smoking prevalence and indoor air pollution. JAMA 1990;264:1565–9.[Abstract]
  19. Elder J, Rosbrook B, Choi W, et al. Public objections to environmental tobacco smoke. Prev Med 1992;21:701–9.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Farkas AJ. Can strategies used by statewide tobacco control programs help smokers make progress in quitting? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:459–64.[Abstract]
  21. Hansen RH. The Current Population Survey: design and methodology. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, July 1985. (Technical paper no. 40).
  22. Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Gibson JT, et al. Cigarette smoking among US adults by state and region: estimates from the Current Population Survey. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1748–58.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. The Tobacco Institute. The tax burden on tobacco: historical compilation. Vol 28. Washington, DC: The Tobacco Institute, 1993.
  24. The Tobacco Institute. Monthly state cigarette tax reports. December 1983–March 1997. (Available from The Tobacco Institute,1875 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006).
  25. US Department of Agriculture. Tobacco situation and outlet report. Washington, DC: Commercial Agriculture Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, December 1995. (Document no. TBS-233).
  26. Cummings KM, Pechacek T, Shopland D. The illegal sale of cigarettes to US minors: estimates by state. Am J Public Health 1994;84:300–2.[Abstract]
  27. US Bureau of the Census. Resident population for selected age groups: 1980–1989. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, Population Distribution Branch, 1990.
  28. US Bureau of the Census. Resident population for selected age groups: 1990–1994. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, Population Distribution Branch, 1994.
  29. Becker RA, Chambers JM, Wilks AR. The new S language: a programming environment for data analysis and graphics. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, 1988.
  30. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ. Calendar effects in monthly time series: modeling and adjustments. J Am Stat Assoc 1992;77:520–8.
  31. Shapiro E. Price cut on Marlboro upsets rosy notions about tobacco profits. Wall Street Journal 1993;Apr 5:A1, A10.
  32. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334.[ISI]
  33. Gilpin EA, Pierce JP, Cavin SW, et al. Estimates of population smoking prevalence: self vs proxy reports of smoking status. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1576–9.[Abstract]
  34. Lewit EM, Hyland A, Kerrebrock N, et al. Price, public policy and youth smoking. Tob Control 1997;6(suppl 2):S17–24.[Free Full Text]
  35. Lewit E, Coate D, Grossman M. The effects of government regulation on teenage smoking. J Law Econ 1981;24:545–73.[ISI]
  36. Chaloupka FJ, Grossman M. Price, tobacco control policies and youth smoking. New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996. (Working paper 5740).
  37. Gerlach KK, Shopland DR, Hartman AM, et al. Workplace smoking policies in the United States: results from a national survey of more than 100,000 workers. Tob Control 1997;6:199–206.[Abstract]
  38. Keeler TE, Hu TW, Barnett PG, et al. Taxation, regulation, and addiction: a demand function for cigarettes based on time-series evidence. J Health Econ 1996;15:499–512.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Institute for the Study of Smoking Behavior and Policy. Smoking cessation—the organization, delivery, and financing of services, July 13–14, 1989. Cambridge, MA: Institute for the Study of Smoking Behavior and Policy, 1990.
  40. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Emery SL, et al. Tobacco control in California: who's winning the war? An evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1996. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, 1998.
Received for publication November 30, 1998. Accepted for publication January 12, 2000.