Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Community guide recommendations and state level tobacco control programmes: 1999–2004
  1. Carol L Schmitt1,
  2. Ann M Malarcher3,
  3. Pamela I Clark2,
  4. Jennifer M Bombard3,
  5. Warren Strauss4,
  6. Frances A Stillman5
  1. 1RTI International, Washington, DC, USA
  2. 2Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Baltimore, MD, USA
  3. 3Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
  4. 4Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA
  5. 5Center for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Carol L Schmitt
 701 13th Street, NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005, USA; cschmitt{at}


Objective: To identify the level of effort state tobacco control programmes and partners have expended on interventions recommended by the community guide and how those efforts have changed over time between 1999 and 2004.

Design: Longitudinal study.

Setting: United States.

Participants: State tobacco control partners, including the state health department, voluntary agencies and tobacco control coalitions.

Main outcome measure: We used the Strength of Tobacco Control survey responses in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to calculate the mean proportion of state tobacco control partners working on recommended interventions and subsequently analysed changes in effort over time.

Results: The proportion of state tobacco control partners working to promote clean indoor air legislation remained at more than 70% in all three years. The proportion working to increase taxes on tobacco rose significantly between 1999 and 2002 (from 54% to 70%), and those working to reduce patient costs for tobacco cessation treatments never exceeded 31% in any year. Use of mass media targeting youths decreased significantly in all years (from 40% to 32% to 26%), and the proportion of state tobacco control partners participating in a quitline has increased steadily and significantly in all years (from 24% to 36% to 41%). The level of effort in each area varied widely between states and over time.

Conclusions: State tobacco control partners are implementing evidence based interventions, but more focus is needed on the tobacco cessation and mass media campaign components of comprehensive tobacco control programmes.

  • ASSIST, American Stop Smoking Intervention Study
  • CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • CIS, Cancer Information Service
  • IMPACT, Initiative to Mobilize for the Prevention and Control of Tobacco use
  • NCI, National Cancer Institute
  • NTCP, National Tobacco Control Program
  • OSH, Office on Smoking and Health
  • SAQ, self administered questionnaire
  • SoTC, Strength of Tobacco Control
  • STATE, State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation
  • tobacco control programmes
  • United States

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding: This paper was supported through contract 200-2001-00121, Task Order No 0005.

  • The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.