Statewide comprehensive tobacco programs
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Community conditions, also known as the social determinants of health, shape the health of individuals and communities. Quality education, jobs that pay a living wage and a clean environment are among the conditions that impact our health. Modifying these social, economic and environmental conditions can influence how long and how well people live.
Learn more about community conditions by viewing our model of health.
Statewide comprehensive tobacco control programs coordinate state and community-level cessation and prevention interventions and provide information on the dangers of tobacco via educational, regulatory, clinical, social, and economic strategies1, such as restrictions on tobacco product marketing and availability, mass media campaigns, cessation services, or smoke-free policies. Programs often provide assistance to community-based organizations and coalitions that implement local tobacco control programs and policies. Statewide programs also conduct surveillance, evaluation, and program monitoring2.
The term “tobacco” in this strategy refers to commercial tobacco, not ceremonial or traditional tobacco. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps recognizes the important role that ceremonial and traditional tobacco play for many Tribal Nations, and our tobacco-related work focuses on eliminating the harms and inequities associated with commercial tobacco.
What could this strategy improve?
Expected Benefits
Our evidence rating is based on the likelihood of achieving these outcomes:
Reduced number of tobacco users
Reduced youth smoking
Improved health outcomes
Reduced tobacco use
Increased quit rates
Reduced exposure to secondhand smoke
Reduced health care costs
What does the research say about effectiveness?
There is strong evidence that statewide comprehensive tobacco control programs reduce the number of tobacco users and amount of tobacco used, increase quit rates, reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS), improve health outcomes, and reduce health care costs2.
Statewide comprehensive tobacco control programs reduce long-term smoking by adults and youth. States with programs have greater reductions in youth smoking, smoking initiation among adolescents (ages 11 to 17), and higher quit rates for adult smokers than states without programs. Statewide programs reduce SHS exposure in homes and workplaces, and residents of states with programs are more likely to adopt home smoking bans than those in states without programs. Comprehensive tobacco control programs can reduce smoking-related cancers, deaths, and hospitalizations2.
In the long-term, states with comprehensive tobacco control programs have greater reductions in daily tobacco use and reduced cigarette pack sales than states without programs2.
Statewide programs reduce tobacco use and SHS exposure similarly across racial and ethnic groups, as well as education and income levels2. A study of Oklahoma’s statewide comprehensive tobacco control program suggests that such programs can be more effective in rural than urban areas3.
Statewide comprehensive tobacco control programs are cost effective; savings from averted health care costs exceed program costs. Programs funded at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended levels are more effective than programs funded at lower levels2.
How could this strategy impact health disparities? This strategy is rated no impact on disparities likely.
Implementation Examples
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prepared recommended funding levels for each state’s and Washington, D.C.’s comprehensive tobacco control programs1. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids lists the projected spending on an annual basis. States’ spending projections range from 0% to 89.4% of the CDC recommendation in fiscal year 2019; Connecticut, Tennessee, and West Virginia are projected to spend 0% and Alaska to spend 89.4%4, 5. Cumulatively, states will spend 19.8% of the total funding the CDC recommends spending on tobacco control programs in 20195.
The California Tobacco Control Branch leads statewide and local health programs in promoting a tobacco free environment; it also provides information about tobacco control policies, community resources, media tools, and research and evaluation results6. The New York State Tobacco Control Program includes community programs and partnerships, health communications, the New York State Smokers’ Quitline, and surveillance, evaluation, and research efforts7.
Implementation Resources
CDPH-CTCB - California Department of Public Health (CDPH). California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP). 2018.
CTFK-Issues - U.S. state and local issues. Prevention and cessation programs: Reducing smoking, saving lives, saving money. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 2018.
CTFK-Tobacco settlement - Broken promises to our children: A state-by-state look at the 1998 tobacco settlement 19 years later. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 2018.
CDC-King 2014 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs - 2014. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2014.
CTFK-TFR - Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), Tobacco Free Retailers (TFR). You can shop tobacco-free: find stores that don't sell tobacco products.
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 CDC-King 2014 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs - 2014. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2014.
2 CG-Tobacco - The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Tobacco.
3 Rhoades 2015 - Rhoades RR, Beebe LA, Boeckman LM, Williams MB. Communities of excellence in tobacco control: Changes in local policy and key outcomes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2015;48(1):S21-S28.
4 CTFK-Tobacco settlement - Broken promises to our children: A state-by-state look at the 1998 tobacco settlement 19 years later. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 2018.
5 CTFK-State spending - Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK). History of spending for state tobacco prevention programs FY2000 - FY2019.
6 CDPH-CTCB - California Department of Public Health (CDPH). California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP). 2018.
7 NYS TCP - New York State Department of Public Health. New York State Tobacco Control Program (NYS TCP). 2018.
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks