Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background In January 1998, the California state legislature extended a workplace smoking ban to bars. The purpose of this study was to explore the conditions that facilitate or hinder compliance with a smoking ban in bars. Methods We studied the implementation of the smoking ban in bars by interviewing three sets of policy participants: bar employers responsible for complying with the law; local government officials responsible for enforcing the law; and tobacco control activists who facilitated implementation. We transcribed the interviews and did a qualitative analysis of the text. Results The conditions that facilitated bar owners' compliance with a smoking ban in bars included: if the cost to comply was minimal; if the bars with which they were in competition were in compliance with the smoking ban; and if there was authoritative, consistent, coordinated, and uniform enforcement. Conversely, the conditions that hindered compliance included: if the law had minimal sanctions; if competing bars in the area allowed smoking; and if enforcement was delayed or inadequate. Conclusion Many local enforcers wished to forfeit their local discretion and believed the workplace smoking ban in bars would be best implemented by a state agency. The potential implication of this study is that, given the complex nature of local politics, smoking bans in bars are best implemented at a broader provincial or national level.

In the highly contentious abortion arena, the new oral abortifacient technology RU486 is one among many actors. This article offers an arena analysis of the heterogeneous constructions of RU486 by various actors, including scientists, pharmaceutical compa nies, medical groups, antiabortion groups, women's health movement groups, and others who have produced situated knowledges. Conceptually, we find not only that the identity of the nonhuman actor-RU486 -is unstable and multiple but also that, in practice, there are other (previously invisible) implicated actors—the downstream users and consumers of the technology. If we try to follow all the actors, we find a fuller and more historicized arena, and, ironically, we too can be construed as implicated actors in it.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the characteristics of the basic science, biomedical, and socioeconomic literature submitted in 1993-1994 by supporters and opponents of the proposed workplace regulation of tobacco smoke developed by the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health (MOSH) Advisory Board. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed 544 written publications submitted to the MOSH Advisory Board regarding the proposed workplace regulation of tobacco smoke. Outcome measures included the type and year of publication and, for journal articles, the journal's peer review policy and impact factor. RESULTS: Supporters of regulation submitted fewer documents (n = 164) than opponents (n = 380). Supporters of regulation submitted a lower proportion of conference proceedings and a higher proportion of government reports. The publications submitted to the regulators by the supporters of regulation were more recently published than the materials submitted by opponents. Journal articles represented more than half of the publications submitted; most were peer-reviewed. Supporters of regulation submitted articles from journals with higher impact factors (median impact factor 2.78) than did opponents of regulation (median 1.66; p = 0.0005), and articles that were published more recently (median year of publication 1990) than those submitted by opponents (median 1989; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Public health advocates should highlight the scientific evidence base that supports tobacco control regulations. Public health advocates should encourage and support regulatory officials' use of the criteria of peer review, impact factor, and date of publication to prioritize their review of submitted documents in order to base policy on the best available evidence.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) is intended to test promising drug abuse treatment models in multisite clinical trials and to support adoption of new interventions into clinical practice. Using qualitative research methods we asked the following question: how might the technology of multisite clinical trials be modified to better support adoption of tested interventions? A total of 42 participants, representing eight organizational levels ranging from clinic staff to clinical trial leaders, were interviewed about their role in the clinical trial, its interactions with clinics, and intervention adoption. Among eight clinics participating in the clinical trial, we found adoption of the tested intervention in one clinic only. Analysis of interview data revealed four conceptual themes likely to affect adoption and may be informative in future multisite clinical trials. Planning for adoption in the early stages of protocol development will better serve the aim of integrating new interventions into practice.