|
|
Volume 4: No. 3, July 2007
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Tobacco Control in State Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans: Opportunities for Decreasing Tobacco-Related Disease
Briseis A. Kilfoy, MPH, Karen Suchanek Hudmon, DrPH, MS, Jerold R. Mande, MPH
Suggested citation: Kilfoy BA, Hudmon KS, Mande JR. Tobacco control in state comprehensive cancer control plans: opportunities for decreasing tobacco-related disease. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online] July 2007 [date cited]. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/2007/
jul/06_0092.htm.
PEER REVIEWED
Abstract
Introduction
Comprehensive cancer control plans published by state, tribal, and territorial health agencies present an excellent opportunity to help prevent tobacco-related and other cancers.
In this analysis, we sought to estimate the extent to which tobacco control activities outlined in state comprehensive cancer control plans
incorporated the tobacco control recommendations presented by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs
— August 1999 (Best Practices) and The Guide to Community Preventive Services: Tobacco Use Prevention and Control (The Guide).
Methods
We analyzed the 39 available state comprehensive cancer control plans to
determine which of the CDC tobacco control recommendations were incorporated. We
then summarized these data across the 39 states.
Results
The 39 states incorporated a mean of 5.6 recommendations from Best Practices (SD, 2.8; range, 0–9)
and 3.9 recommendations from The Guide (SD, 1.9; range, 0–6). Nearly one-half of state plans (48.7%) addressed funding for tobacco control; of these, 52.6% (25.6% of total) delineated a specific, measurable goal for funding.
Conclusion
The extent to which tobacco control is addressed in state comprehensive cancer control plans varies widely. Our analysis revealed opportunities for states to improve compliance with CDC’s tobacco-related recommendations for cancer control.
Back to top
Introduction
Tobacco use, the leading known preventable cause of death in the United States (1), results in
an estimated 20% of all deaths annually (2). Smoking contributes to approximately 30% of all cancers in the developed world and is responsible for an estimated 90% of lung cancers and for many other malignancies (3). Because tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor, tobacco control offers
enormous opportunity for reducing tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality, not only from cancer but also from cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and a wide range of other conditions.
Studies show that comprehensive approaches to tobacco control, including approaches that focus on educational, economic, clinical, and regulatory strategies, are particularly effective in reducing the prevalence of tobacco use and associated disease and disability (4,5). Tobacco control has effectively reduced the prevalence of smoking in several states, including California, Massachusetts,
Oregon, and Florida (6), and evidence gathered in these states and elsewhere has led to the development
of two tobacco control guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs — August 1999 (7) (Best Practices) and The Guide to Community Preventive Services: Tobacco Use
Prevention and Control (8) (The Guide). Both reports offer critical reviews of the literature and identify approaches to tobacco control supported by the existing body of scientific evidence (9). The products of decades of research, these guidelines are intended to inform policy decisions so that states are able to employ the most effective measures of tobacco use prevention, tobacco
cessation, and chronic disease treatment.
To enhance cancer control efforts, CDC currently supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP),
which provides financial support and expert advice to aid states in developing
cancer control plans. Comprehensive cancer control is based on the premise that
effective cancer control planning and program implementation at the local,
state, and national levels address a
continuum of services, beginning with primary prevention and early detection and progressing through quality cancer treatment and addressing
the needs of cancer survivors (10).
With approximately $15 million in Congressional appropriations in fiscal year 2005, CDC supported
efforts to build coordinated and focused cancer control programs in all states, the District of Columbia, six tribal
jurisdictions, and six Pacific Island territories (10). By August 2005, 39 states had published comprehensive cancer control plans, and 63 states, tribal, and
territorial health agencies had obtained funding for their programs. CDC specifically recommends that states base their comprehensive tobacco control plans on the evidence-based strategies delineated in Best Practices and The Guide. Although the number of states that have developed a comprehensive cancer control plan has increased in recent years, and nearly all of these plans
include a tobacco control section, no study has assessed the extent to which these sections are congruent with CDC’s tobacco control guidelines.
Our goal was to estimate the extent to which the tobacco control sections of state comprehensive cancer control plans
incorporate the tobacco control recommendations in Best Practices and
The Guide, so that missed opportunities can be brought to the attention of stakeholders and addressed in future
revisions to these plans. We also assessed whether each state plan addressed the funding objectives for comprehensive tobacco control activities recommended in Best Practices.
Back to top
Methods
Sources of data
Our analysis focused only on the 50 states, omitting the District of Columbia, tribal
jurisdictions, and Pacific Island territories. During summer 2005, we obtained the most recent editions of the available comprehensive cancer control plans by contacting an administrator of each state planning group and by searching for published versions of the plans on the Internet, particularly on the NCCCP
Web page (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/ncccp/index.htm). We extracted the tobacco-related content from each plan and asked the planning group administrators to review their state’s information to confirm that all goals, strategies, and objectives regarding tobacco control were accurate and complete. Eleven states had not published cancer control plans as of August 2005 and were not included in
the analysis.
Analysis
We analyzed the 39 available state comprehensive cancer control plans to
determine which of the CDC tobacco control recommendations were incorporated. We
then summarized these data across the 39 states.
To analyze whether state plans addressed the tobacco control recommendations in Best Practices and The Guide, we used dichotomous indicators: yes, the recommendation is addressed in the plan, or no, the recommendation is not addressed in the plan. We also used dichotomous indicators to assess whether the plans specifically addressed funding levels: yes, tobacco
control funding is addressed in the plan, or no, tobacco control funding is not addressed in the plan. For example,
because Delaware’s plan asserts that the state will “at a minimum, fund comprehensive statewide tobacco-control activities at $8.6 million (the CDC-recommended minimum)” (13),
we classified the plan as having addressed funding.
Back to top
Results
The state comprehensive cancer control plans addressed a mean of 5.6 of the 9 recommendations from Best Practices
(SD, 2.8; range, 0–9) (Figure 1), with 7 states integrating all of the
recommendations and 5 integrating none. The state plans addressed a mean of 3.9
of the 6 recommendations from The Guide (SD, 1.9; range 0–6) (Figure 2),
with 8 states integrating all of the recommendations
and 4 integrating none.
The recommendation on cessation programs was the most commonly addressed (86.8%); the
recommendation on chronic disease programs was the least commonly addressed (34.2%) (Table). Nearly one half of
state plans (48.7%) addressed funding for tobacco control; of these, 52.6% (25.6% of total) included a specific, measurable goal, either a dollar amount or a target percentage of CDC’s minimum funding recommendation.
Figure 1. Extent (in percentage) to which state comprehensive cancer
control plans (N = 39) incorporate recommendations (N = 9)
from Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (7), by
number of recommendations included, United States, 2005. [A tabular version of this graph is also available.]
Figure 2. Extent (in percentage) to which state comprehensive cancer
control plans (N = 39) incorporate recommendations (N = 6)
from The Guide to Community Preventive Services: Tobacco Use Prevention and Control (8),
by number of recommendations included, United States, 2005. [A tabular version of this graph is also available.]
Back to top
Discussion
Tobacco control should be a prominent element in all comprehensive cancer
control plans. Our content analysis, however, demonstrates wide variation in the
extent to which state cancer control plans incorporate CDC’s recommended tobacco control measures.
Only one in four state plans delineated specific, measurable funding objectives. States that do not effectively plan and address tobacco control
in their comprehensive cancer control plans might be losing an important
opportunity to improve public
health (14).
A strength of our study is that all states included in the analysis had the opportunity to
confirm the tobacco control content that we extracted from their larger comprehensive cancer control plan. Several factors may
influence the extent to which state plans address individual tobacco control recommendations,
including political resistance or efforts by the tobacco industry to derail recommendations such as the implementation of workplace smoking bans or increases in tobacco sales taxes.
Some plans might have been in existence long enough to benefit from evaluation
and revision, whereas plans developed more recently may not yet have been evaluated. Some states might
have tobacco control components in a tobacco
control plan but might not have integrated this information into their comprehensive cancer control plan. Finally, the strategies, goals, and objectives addressed in comprehensive cancer control plans might not accurately reflect the actual tobacco control activities at the state level.
The inability of dichotomized variables to reveal the extent of variation among states’ responses to each recommendation limits our content analysis. For example, in response to the recommendation to increase the
tax on cigarettes, some states have raised the cost per pack by $1.00 or more, whereas other
states have increased the cost by less than
$0.25. Another limitation of our analysis is that it did not reveal the relative importance or effectiveness of individual recommendations.
Finally, despite our careful content analysis of the state plans, our
characterization of whether a state addressed the various recommendations is subject to interpretation.
The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) 2015 Challenge Goal emphasizes
the importance of careful planning in efforts to meet the goal of “eliminating the suffering and death due to cancer” (15). The goals for comprehensive cancer control plans are based on a series of objectives (enhance infrastructure, mobilize support, utilize data and research, build partnerships, assess and
address cancer burden, and conduct evaluations) and desired outcomes to help
states develop the most effective plan in light of their needs and resources (8). Groups of stakeholders from multiple segments of the community develop these plans, and multiple organizations have a sense of ownership. Although in many instances a state department of health has served as a catalyst for this
process and accepts funding from CDC to support planning and implementation, in nearly every case a partnership or coalition of many agencies, groups, and individuals is responsible for identifying the priorities described in the plan and the activities to be implemented (14). Neither Best Practices nor The Guide ranks its recommendations
by importance; consequently,
singling out a recommendation that might be most important for a given state is not possible.
As of November 2006, 49 states had published comprehensive cancer control plans, an increase that represents
tremendous growth since 1998, when the first 6 states received funding to
develop plans. If these plans are, however, to enable the nation to reach such cancer prevention goals as NCI’s 2015 Challenge Goal, they must employ evidence-based strategies to control cancer such as those provided in Best
Practices and The Guide.
Our analysis indicates room for improvement in the extent to which most state plans address tobacco use. Policy makers and planners should examine their state’s comprehensive cancer control plan and their tobacco control plan, if one exists, and achieve concordance between these plans and with each CDC recommendation. Each plan should address funding levels, since sufficient funding is
essential for progression from program planning to implementation. Our results
call the states to action, warranting 1) careful creation or modification of
state comprehensive cancer control plans to adhere to the recommendations set forth in Best Practices and The Guide and 2) sufficient funding to support full enactment of these plans.
Back to top
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their appreciation to Leslie Given and Sara Zeigler with CDC’s Comprehensive Cancer Control Branch, CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, Matthew Myers with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Gary Gurian and C-Change. At the time of writing, Briseis Kilfoy was funded by a fellowship from the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, grant P50-AA15632 through the Yale University Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center (S. O’Malley, Principal Investigator).
Back to top
Author Information
Corresponding author: Jerold R. Mande, MPH, Yale Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, P.O. Box 208055, New Haven, CT 06520. Telephone: 203-785-6943. E-mail: jerold.mande@yale.edu.
Author affiliations: Briseis A. Kilfoy, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Karen Suchanek Hudmon, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, West Lafayette, IN.
Back to top
References
- Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL.
Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.
[Published erratum in JAMA 2005;293(3):293-4]. JAMA 2004;291(10):1238-45.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses — United States, 1997–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:625-8.
- Stein CJ, Colditz GA.
Modifiable risk factors for cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;90(2):299-303.
- Farrelly M, Pechacek T, Chaloupka F. [Published erratum in: J Health Econ
2004;23(2):419].
The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette sales: 1981–2000. J Health Econ 2003;22(5):843-59.
- Stillman F, Hartman A, Graubard B, Giplin E, Murray D, Gibson J.
Evaluation of the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST): a report of outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(22):1681-91.
- Seigel M, Mowery P, Pechacek T, Strauss W, Schooley M.
Trends in cigarette smoking in California compared with the rest of the United States, 1978–1994. Am J Public Health 2000;90(3):372-9.
- Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs — August 1999. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1999.
- The guide to community preventive services. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2006 [cited 2007 Feb 14]. Available from: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/tobacco/
*
- Kerner JF, Guirguis-Blake J, Hennessy KD, Brounstein PJ, Vinson C, Schwartz
RH, et al.
Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16
(Suppl 1):S27-40.
- Given LS, Black B, Lowry G, Huang P, Kerner JF.
Collaborating to conquer cancer: a comprehensive approach to cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16 Suppl 1:S3-14.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
State-specific prevalence of cigarette smoking and quitting among adults — United States, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54(44):1124-7.
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Atlanta
(GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion;2006 [cited 2006 Dec 3]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm
- Turning commitment into action: recommendations of the Delaware Advisory Council on Cancer Incidence and Mortality. Dover: Delaware Advisory Council on Cancer Incidence and Mortality;2002 [cited 2006 Dec 3]. Available from: http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/dpc/consortium.html
*
- True S, Kean T, Nolan P, Haviland E, Hohman K.
In conclusion: the promise of comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16 Suppl 1:S79-88.
- National Cancer Institute. NCI Challenge goal 2015: eliminating the suffering and death due to cancer. Bethesda (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health;[cited 2006 Dec 3]. Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/2015
Back to top
|
|
