Table 4

Impact of county-level efforts on increasing outdoor public secondhand smoke (SHS) policies

ModelPredictorChange in the percent of population covered by strong SHS ordinances95% CIp Value*
BasicDeliverable-implementation quality
 No implementation, no deliverableReference
 High implementation, no deliverable5.7%(−2.3, 13.6)
 No implementation, high deliverable−0.6%(−8.5, 7.3)
 High implementation, high deliverable10.6%(−3.7, 24.9)0.2
Fitted with covariatesDeliverable-implementation quality (4-level)
 No implementation, no deliverableReference
 High implementation, no deliverable4.0%(−3.4, 11.3)
 No implementation, high deliverable−0.9%(−7.7, 5.9)
 High implementation, high deliverable6.2%(−6.2, 18.5)0.3
Voted for tobacco control bills (vs. vetoed)7.6%(−5.1, 20.3)0.3
Monies to legislators
 No monies (referent)Reference
 <$50K15.5%(−2.3, 33.3)
 ≥$50K12.6%(2.3, 22.9)0.4
Best fitDeliverable-implementation quality (2-level)
 Other levels of implementation and deliverableReference
 High implementation, high deliverable9.2%(−3.5, 21.9)0.2
  • * Using type 3 score statistics no predictors were significantly associated with successful increases in SHS policies.

  • Refer to text for predictor definitions.