Smoking Patterns in Oregon Youth: Effects of Funding and Defunding of a Comprehensive State Tobacco Control Program

References 

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Projected smoking-related deaths among youth – United States. MMWR. 1996;45:971–974
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994:65.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994:218.
4. Thomas R. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. The Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 2. Article No. CD001293.
5. Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36:162–169
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (117 KB)
   • CrossRef
6. Pentz MA, Brannon BR, Charlin VL, Barrett EJ, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR. The power of policy: The relationship of smoking policy to adolescent smoking. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:857–862
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Perry CL, Kelder SH, Murray DM, Klepp K. Communitywide smoking prevention: Long-term outcomes of the Minnesota heart health program and the class of 1989 study. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:1210–1216
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
8. Biglan A, Ary DV, Smolkowski K, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a community intervention to prevent adolescent tobacco use. Tob Control. 2000;9:24–32
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
9. Johnson CA, Pentz MA, Weber MD, et al. Relative effectiveness of comprehensive community programming for drug abuse prevention with high-risk and low-risk adolescents. J Consult Clin Psych. 1990;58:447–456
10. Vartiainen E, Paavola M, McAlister A, Puska P. Fifteen-year follow-up of smoking prevention efforts in the North Karelia youth project. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:81–85
11. Flynn BS, Worden JK, Secker-Walker RH, Pirie PL, Badger GJ, Carpenter JH, et al. Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: Effects 2 years after completion. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1148–1150
12. Flay BR, Miller TQ, Hedeker D, et al. The television, school, and family smoking prevention and cessation project. Prev Med. 1995;24:29–40
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
13. Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000;9:177–186
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
14. Siegel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: A review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:45–71
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Meshack AF, Hu S, Pallonen UE, et al. Texas tobacco prevention pilot initiative: Processes and effects. Health Educ Res. 2004;19:657–668
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284:723–728
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Effectiveness of school-based programs as a component of a statewide tobacco control initiative—Oregon 1999–2000. MMWR. 2001;50:663–666
18. Nelson DE, Reynolds JH, Luke DA, et al. Successfully maintaining program funding during trying times: Lessons from tobacco control programs in five states. J Public Health Manage Pract. 2007;13:612–620
19. Sly DF, Arheart K, Dietz N, et al. The outcome consequences of defunding the Minnesota youth tobacco-use prevention program. Prev Med. 2005;41:503–510
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
20. Niederdeppe J, Farrelly MC, Hersey JC, Davis KC. Consequences of dramatic reductions in state tobacco control funds: Florida, 1998–2000. Tobacco Control. 2008;17:205–210
    • CrossRef
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for school health programs to prevent tobacco use and addiction. MMWR. 1994;43:1–18
22. Oregon Healthy Teens. Available at: http://www.dhs.state.or.us/dhs/ph/chs/youthsurvey. Accessed December 26, 2007.
23. Monitoring the Future. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org. Accessed December 26, 2007.
24. Aitkin M, Longford N. Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of Royal Statistical Society 1986; Series A, 149:1–43.
25. Goldstein H. Multilevel Models in Educational and Social Research. London: Charles Griffin; 1987;
26. Kreft IGG. Using multilevel analysis to assess school effectiveness: A study of Dutch secondary schools. Sociol Educ. 1993;66:104–129
27. Raudenbush S, Bryk AS. A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociol Educ. 1986;59:1–17
28. Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Available at: www.sas.com. Accessed Dec. 26, 2007.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; October 2007.
30. Oregon Department of Human Services, Health Services. Make Oregon Healthier: Saving Lives and Saving Dollars. Program Report 2001–2003. Oregon Tobacco Prevention and Education Program, 2003.