Q: Iowa is seeking information and examples from other state/territory tobacco programs regarding examples of “rural programing” looking specifically at the difference in tobacco use in the ‘hard to reach’ rural areas of more rural states across the country.  We would like ideas and suggestions about programming around cessation, addressing secondhand smoke exposure, and reaching the youth population.  Evaluation plans would be wonderful, if available.

A:

1. California: Presentations from a 2008 Rural Conference held in California, as well as sample scopes of work from two rural counties in California (each with populations of under 20,000) are available upon request – please contact tcn@astho.org to request these materials.
    
2. Georgia: In Georgia, we have had success in Miller County, a rural community where the following policies were adopted: tobacco-free schools, tobacco-free parks, tobacco-free county buildings, and a tobacco-free hospital campus. In addition, call volume to the Quit Line has increased due to the local efforts of the coalition and partners. The Miller County Story was selected as a poster at the 2012 National Conference on Tobacco or Health (NCTOH). Editor’s note: The NCTOH abstract from Miller County, “Miller County Story: From Data to Policy Change” is available in the NCTOH abstract book on the conference website.
    
   Another example is Long County, where there are ongoing efforts to reduce the burden of tobacco use. A church based youth group has been leading the movement.
    
3. Washington: We don’t see huge differences in smoking rates by geography, but they do exist:
    
   Percentage of Adults who Smoke by Urban/Rural Location, 2010
    
   

   Urban Core Area	14%
   Large Metro Area	16%
   Large Town	17%
   Small Town/Rural Area	18%
   Statewide	14.9%

    
   Source: Washington Tobacco Facts, 2011
    
   For our Community Transformation Grant work plan, we were required to break apart rural and non-rural interventions. Our major intervention at this time is to provide assistance to public housing authorities to create no-smoking policies. Click here to learn more about the impact of comprehensive smoke-free policies in multi-unit housing.
    
   We know that creation of no-smoking policies has a significant impact on secondhand smoke reduction as well as increasing quit attempts as demonstrated in the attached article.
    
   Places that are too isolated to have public housing still respond to quitline promotion.  This monthly report shows calls from every county except 2.  Over a longer period of time, we can show calls from every county.  In the past some rural counties placed paid ads in their small town weekly newspapers to promote the quitline.  Those rural newspapers seem to be widely read and aren’t very expensive.
    
   Unfortunately, with our funding being cut, the only youth program we have is connected to retailer education and compliance checks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Resources

• Coalition building in rural areas – 7/24/12 – Tobacco Control Network, Help Your Peers listserv
• Cutting Tobacco’s Rural Roots: Tobacco Use In Rural Communities – American Lung Association
• Tobacco Control in Rural America – Legacy

Back to Table of Contents