Implementation strategies to promote community-engaged efforts to counter tobacco marketing at the point of sale
- 68 Downloads
The US tobacco industry spends $8.2 billion annually on marketing at the point of sale (POS), a practice known to increase tobacco use. Evidence-based policy interventions (EBPIs) are available to reduce exposure to POS marketing, and nationwide, states are funding community-based tobacco control partnerships to promote local enactment of these EBPIs. Little is known, however, about what implementation strategies best support community partnerships’ success enacting EBPI. Guided by Kingdon’s theory of policy change, Counter Tools provides tools, training, and other implementation strategies to support community partnerships’ performance of five core policy change processes: document local problem, formulate policy solutions, engage partners, raise awareness of problems and solutions, and persuade decision makers to enact new policy. We assessed Counter Tools’ impact at 1 year on (1) partnership coordinators’ self-efficacy, (2) partnerships’ performance of core policy change processes, (3) community progress toward EBPI enactment, and (4) salient contextual factors. Counter Tools provided implementation strategies to 30 partnerships. Data on self-efficacy were collected using a pre-post survey. Structured interviews assessed performance of core policy change processes. Data also were collected on progress toward EBPI enactment and contextual factors. Analysis included descriptive and bivariate statistics and content analysis. Following 1-year exposure to implementation strategies, coordinators’ self-efficacy increased significantly. Partnerships completed the greatest proportion of activities within the “engage partners” and “document local problem” core processes. Communities made only limited progress toward policy enactment. Findings can inform delivery of implementation strategies and tests of their effects on community-level efforts to enact EBPIs.
KeywordsImplementation strategies Health promotion policy Tobacco Point-of-sale
Compliance with ethical standards
The project described was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute/NIH, through Cooperative Agreement Number U48 DP005017-SIP to the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or NIH.
Conflict of interest
Two of the authors (Myers and Grant) are employed by the organization whose implementation strategies are being studied. The lead author (Leeman) and two other authors (Wangen and Queen) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. UNC’s IRB reviewed study protocols and determined the study to be “Not Human Subjects Research” because data were not being collected on participants’ personal information and participants were only asked for information related to the performance of their jobs.
As noted above, this study was not human subject research.
- 1.Office of the Surgeon General. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.Google Scholar
- 7.Federal Trade Commission. (2016). Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report for 2014. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-cigarette-report-2014-federal-trade-commission-smokeless-tobacco-report/ftc_cigarette_report_2014.pdf ).
- 8.Center for Public Health Systems Science. (2014). Point-of-sale report to the nation: the tobacco retail and policy landscape. St. Louis, MO: Center for Public Health Systems Science at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis and the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Research.Google Scholar
- 13.Kim, A. E., Loomis, B. R., Busey, A. H., Farrelly, M. C., Willett, J. G., & Juster, H. R. (2013b). Influence of retail cigarette advertising, price promotions, and retailer compliance on youth smoking-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 19, E1–E9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Institute of Medicine. (2007). Ending the tobacco problem: a blueprint for the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 20.National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Heatlh. (2014). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/pdfs/2014/comprehensive.pdf.Google Scholar
- 21.Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy. Using science as evidence in public policy. National Academy of Sciences; 2012.Google Scholar
- 26.Leeman, J., Calancie, L., Hartman, M., Escoffery, C. T., Herrmann, A. K., Tague, L. E., et al. (2015b). What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 10, 80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Leeman, J., Calancie, L., Kegler, M.C., Escoffery, C.T., Herrmann, A.K., Tague, L.E., … Samuel-Hodge, C.. Developing theory to guide building practitioners' capacity to implement evidence-based interventions. Health Educ Behav. 2015c, 1–30, DOI: 10.1177/1090198115610572.
- 30.Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
- 32.Lyn, R., Aytur, S., Davis, T. A., Eyler, A., Evenson, K., Chriqui, J. F., et al. (2013). Policy, systems, and environmental approaches for obesity prevention: a framework to inform local and state action. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 19(3 Suppl 1), S23–S33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Weiss D, Lillefjell M, Magnus E. Facilitators for the development and implementation of health promoting policy and programs - a scoping review at the local community level. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16(1): 140. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2811-9
- 38.Rhoades, R. R., Beebe, L. A., Boeckman, L. M., & Williams, M. B. Communities of excellence in tobacco control: changes in local policy and key outcomes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(1 Suppl 1), S21–S28.Google Scholar
- 41.Brown, C.H., Chamberlain, P., Saldana, L., Padgett, C., Wang, W., & Cruden, G.. Evaluation of two implementation strategies in 51 child county public service systems in two states: results of a cluster randomized head-to-head implementation trial. Implement Sci. 2014; 9.Google Scholar
- 46.McLaughlin, I.. License to kill? Tobacco retailer licensing as an effective enforcement tool. Tobacco Control Legal Consoritum. 2010. Retrieved from tclc-syn-retailer-2010.pdf.Google Scholar
- 51.Leviton, L.C. & Trujillo, M.D.. Interaction of theory and practice to assess external validity. Eval Rev. 2016; 1–36, DOI: 10.1177/0193841X15625289.