| Title |
Implementation strategies to promote community-engaged efforts to counter tobacco marketing at the point of sale
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-017-0489-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Leeman, Allison Myers, Jennifer C. Grant, Mary Wangen, Tara L. Queen |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,528,867
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#752
of 1,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,785
of 310,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.