Tob Control 2001;10:218-224 ( Autumn )

Policy makers' perspectives on tobacco control advocates' roles in regulation development

Theresa Montini^a, Lisa A Bero^b

^a Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA, ^b Department of Clinical Pharmacy, and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco

Correspondence to: Lisa A Bero, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, Box 0936, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936, USA bero{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Received 15 September 2000; Revision received 9 March 2001; Accepted 22 March 2001

OBJECTIVETo identify, from policy makers' perspectives, strategies that enhance tobacco control advocates' effectiveness in the regulatory arena.
DESIGNKey informant interview component of a comparative case study of regulatory agencies in the USA.
SUBJECTSPolicy makers involved in the development of four regulatory tobacco control policies (three state and one federal).
METHODSInterviews of policy makers, field notes, and deliberation minutes were coded inductively.
RESULTSPolicy makers considered both written commentary and public testimony when developing tobacco control regulations. They triaged written commentary based upon whether the document was from a peer reviewed journal, a summary of research evidence, or from a source considered credible. They coped with in-person testimony by avoiding being diverted from the scientific evidence, and by assessing the presenters' credibility. Policy makers suggested that tobacco control advocates should: present science in a format that is well organised and easily absorbed; engage scientific experts to participate in the regulatory process; and lobby to support the tobacco control efforts of the regulatory agency.
CONCLUSIONSThere is an important role for tobacco control advocates in the policy development process in regulatory agencies.


Keywords: health policy; regulations; policy makers

---

© 2001 by Tobacco Control
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Jewell, C., Bero, L. (2007). Public Participation and Claimsmaking: Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California's Ergonomics Rulemaking. J Public Adm Res Theory 17: 625-650 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Drope, J, Glantz, S (2003). British Columbia capital regional district 100% smokefree bylaw: a successful public health campaign despite industry opposition. Tobacco Control 12: 264-268 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bryan-Jones, K., Bero, L. A. (2003). Tobacco Industry Efforts to Defeat the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Indoor Air Quality Rule. Am. J. Public Health 93: 585-592 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Scollo, M, Lal, A, Hyland, A, Glantz, S (2003). Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control 12: 13-20 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roth, A. L., Dunsby, J., Bero, L. A. (2003). Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation. Social Studies of Science 33: 7-44 [Abstract]  
• Bialous, S A., Glantz, S A (2002). ASHRAE Standard 62: tobacco industry's influence over national ventilation standards. Tobacco Control 11: 315-328 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Szilagyi, T (2002). Hungary introduces a total ban on tobacco advertising. Tobacco Control 11: 79-81 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bero, L. A, Montini, T., Bryan-Jones, K., Mangurian, C. (2001). Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tobacco Control 10: 329-336 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• PERTSCHUK, M. (2001). The power of science and truth: countering paid liars' efforts to influence tobacco policy. Tobacco Control 10: 225-226 [Full Text]