Trinidad Dennis R, Donaldson Candice D, Dang Brian, Stone Matthew D, Khin Thet Nwe Myo, McMenamin Sara B, Shi Yuyan, Vuong Tam D, Zhang Xueying, Messer Karen, Pierce John P
Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2025 Apr 25;54:103080. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103080. eCollection 2025 Jun.
Proposition 56, a $2 tobacco tax enacted in California in 2016, led to increased funding to Local Lead Agencies which work to reduce tobacco use. We examined whether Proposition 56 was associated with increases in the population covered by local policies addressing four areas: 1) tobacco retail sales (TRS), 2) flavored tobacco products sales (FTP), 3) outdoor secondhand smoke (SHS) restrictions, and 4) smoking restrictions in multi-unit housing (MUH).
2007-2023 data from the Policy Evaluation Tracking System in California were analyzed. The unit of analysis was the California jurisdiction, with outcome the time (in months) to policy enactment in a jurisdiction. Kaplan-Meier estimates and population coverage percentages were calculated by weighing each jurisdiction by its population size. Discrete-time survival models were fitted to test the effect of Proposition 56 on the rate of population coverage for each policy of interest.
By January 2023, 79 % of the California population was covered by a local SHS policy but only 55 %, 47 % and 18 % was covered by a local TRS, FTP and MUH policy, respectively. The rate of increase in TRS and FTP policy coverage was greater post-Proposition 56 than pre-Proposition 56 ( < 0.001), while the rate of increase did not change significantly for MUH and SHS policies.
Proposition 56 was associated with marked increases in the enactment of TRS and FTP, but not SHS or MUH policies. Despite increases post-Proposition 56, additional efforts are needed to increase local adoption of TRS, FTP and MUH policies because coverage remains low.
2016年在加利福尼亚州颁布的2美元烟草税提案56,使得为减少烟草使用而工作的地方牵头机构获得了更多资金。我们研究了提案56是否与地方政策覆盖人群在四个领域的增加有关:1)烟草零售销售(TRS),2)调味烟草制品销售(FTP),3)户外二手烟(SHS)限制,以及4)多单元住房(MUH)中的吸烟限制。
分析了加利福尼亚州政策评估跟踪系统2007 - 2023年的数据。分析单位是加利福尼亚州的辖区,结果是一个辖区内政策颁布的时间(以月为单位)。通过按人口规模对每个辖区进行加权来计算Kaplan - Meier估计值和人口覆盖百分比。采用离散时间生存模型来检验提案56对每项相关政策的人口覆盖率的影响。
到2023年1月,加利福尼亚州79%的人口受到地方二手烟政策的覆盖,但分别只有55%、47%和18%的人口受到地方烟草零售销售、调味烟草制品销售和多单元住房吸烟限制政策的覆盖。提案56之后,烟草零售销售和调味烟草制品销售政策覆盖率的增长速度比提案56之前更快(<0.001),而多单元住房和二手烟政策的增长速度没有显著变化。
提案56与烟草零售销售和调味烟草制品销售政策的颁布显著增加相关,但与二手烟或多单元住房政策无关。尽管提案56之后有所增加,但仍需要进一步努力以提高地方对烟草零售销售、调味烟草制品销售和多单元住房政策的采用率,因为覆盖率仍然很低。