Public Health Topics
Systematic Reviews
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Tobacco use is a source of chronic and fatal illnesses for users and persons with secondary exposure. In the United States, cigarette smoking contributes to one in five deaths and costs more than $193 billion in annual lost productivity and healthcare expenditures. CDC: Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004.
The Law:
Smoking bans and restrictions prohibit smoking in specified areas. These restrictions aim to eliminate or reduce exposure to second hand smoke. Smoking bans and restrictions are found in state and local laws as well as regulations governing workplace safety. For examples of state smoking regulations, see ARS 36-601.01 (Arizona), Utah Health Code § 26.83.3 (Utah), VT Health Code § 1742 (Vermont), and RI Health & Safety Code § 23-20.10-3 (Rhode Island).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, a Community Guide expert panel reviewed 10 studies that assessed the effectiveness of smoking bans and restrictions as means of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces. Hopkins DP et al. Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(2S). Some of the underlying studies measured the impact of specific smoking restriction laws; others measured the impact of policies initiated and enforced by private entities. The reviewers identified reductions in self-reported exposure or actual nicotine vapor in 9 of the 10 studies. Reductions in vapor measures ranged from 44 percent to 97 percent.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is strong evidence supporting smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke.
Additional Information:
An interactive map from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gives policy-makers and advocates a nationwide picture of continuing state efforts on key tobacco control policies.
Additional Resources: Smoke-free Laws by State
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Tooth decay, also known as dental caries, remains a major public health problem. Fifty-nine percent of persons aged 12 to 19 suffer from tooth decay. CDC: Dental Caries Fact Sheet. Advanced tooth decay can cause significant pain and loss of the teeth, and can be costly to treat. CDC: Oral Health: At a Glance: 2009
The Law:
Milk fluoridation is required or authorized in various countries in Europe and elsewhere. In the US, milk fluoridation is not currently legal because it lacks FDA approval. However, for US jurisdictions without community water fluoridation, fluoridated milk may be a promising alternative source of fluoride.
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Yeung et al. reviewed two randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of milk fluoridation programs on reducing dental caries. Yeung A, et al. Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. Art. No.:CD003876. Both trials compared the effects of fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk on community dental health. Effectiveness was measured by changes in decayed, missing, or filled teeth. One of the studies found a significant association between fluoridated milk and reduction in tooth decay; the other found a much less substantial association over a longer time period. Based on these findings and the limited number of primary studies, the reviewers concluded that milk fluoridation may be a promising intervention, but that there is currently insufficient evidence to establish its effectiveness as a measure aimed at improving oral health.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of milk fluoridation as a public health intervention aimed at reducing tooth decay.
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Vaccine coverage for vaccine preventable disease is an essential public health goal. Vaccination against specific diseases is particularly important for high risk populations, which may include individuals of a certain age (e.g., greater than 68 years for Pneumococcal Polysaccharide) or with specified medical conditions (e.g., HIV/AIDS for influenza). CDC: General Recommendations on Immunization.
The Law:
Laws and policies require vaccination (subject to enumerated exceptions) as a condition of certain jobs. In some states, state law or hospital policies require hospital staff to be vaccinated against influenza. In Rhode Island, for example, health care workers with direct patient contact must be vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella. RI Code R. 14-090-007. Illinois requires rubella vaccinations for nursery workers. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 77, § 250.1820.
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, a Community Guide expert panel attempted to systematically review the evidence concerning the impact of requiring vaccinations outright or as a condition of specified activities such as employment as a healthcare worker. Ndaiye SM, Hopkins DP, Shefer AM, et al. Interventions to improve influenza, pneumococcal polysaccharide, and hepatitis B vaccination coverage among high-risk adults: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005;28(5S):248-79. The reviewers were unable to locate any studies that measured the impact of these laws in the U.S. As a result, the reviewers concluded there is insufficient evidence to currently evaluate the effectiveness of these laws and policies as public health measures aimed at protecting vulnerable populations against specific diseases.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of requiring vaccinations as a condition for specified jobs as a means of reducing incidence of specific diseases among particularly vulnerable populations.
Additional Information:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled and provided online access to state laws requiring or encouraging vaccination of health care workers.
Additional Resources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
The leading cause of death for people age 34 and below in the United States is motor vehicle crashes. CDC: Motor Vehicle Safety Factsheet. Crashes occur due to impaired driving, inexperience, faulty vision and general recklessness. In congested areas, pedestrian safety is major public health concern. Approximately 700 children are killed each year by motor vehicles while walking. CDC: Reducing Childhood Pedestrian Injuries: Summary of a Multidisciplinary Conference.
The Law:
Traffic laws are designed to minimize motor vehicle crashes and to improve driver, passenger and pedestrian safety. Enforcing traffic laws can be difficult. Red light cameras take a picture of any car that fails to appropriately abide by a red light thereby endangering other drivers and pedestrians. The pictures are used to issue traffic citations, which often include sizable mandatory fines ($446 in Los Angeles: Photo Red Light Program). Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have red light programs operating somewhere within their jurisdiction authorized either through state or local law. Governors’ Highway Association: Red Light Cameras. For an example of a state law authorizing the use of red light cameras, see RI Stat 42-28.9
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Aeron-Thomas and Hess reviewed ten studies measuring the impact of red light cameras on motor vehicle crashes. Aeron-Thomas A, Hess, S. Red-Light Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Crashes. The Cochrane Library. 2009, v.2. The reviewers found that the studies generally identified an association between the red light cameras and reductions in fatal crashes. However, weaker and often statistically insignificant relationships were observed between the cameras and overall crashes. On this basis, the reviewers concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of red light cameras as an intervention aimed at reducing fatal crashes, but that additional research is needed to validate the impact of these cameras on overall crashes and reckless driving generally.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Cochrane Collaborative expert panel, sufficient evidence exists to support red light cameras as an effective public health intervention to reduce motor vehicle crash fatalities, but there is insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of the cameras in reducing overall crashes.
Additional Information:
The Governors’ Highway Association provides online access to a table indicating in which states red light cameras are authorized or prohibited under state law.
Additional Resources: Governors’ Highway Association
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
In the United States, motor vehicle–related accidents are the leading cause of death for all people under the age of 34. In 2000, motor vehicle crashes cost roughly $230 billion. CDC: Motor vehicle safety. The number of licensed drivers over the age of 65 has increased dramatically over the last decade. Drivers ages 80 and over have a higher rate of fatal crashes per miles driven than all other demographic groups except teenagers. The impact of aging on vision, cognitive functions, and other physical capacities has been identified as a contributing factor in motor vehicle crashes. CDC Website – Older Adult Drivers: Fact Sheet.
The Law:
State transportation and safety laws require different procedures and apply different standards in screening the vision of older drivers. For instance, to renew a license in California, an individual must have visual acuity of 20/40 with both eyes together and at least 20/40 in the stronger eye and 20/70 in the weaker eye, California Department of Motor Vehicles, CA Vehicle Code §12805; in Arizona, a minimum of 20/40 in one eye is required. Arizona Administrative Code: R17-4-502, R17-4-503. The age at which vision tests are required for renewal also varies (e.g., 40 years in Maryland (Maryland Transportation Code 16-115(h)) to 80 years in Virginia. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-330 (C)). For another example of a state law requiring vision screening for individuals above a specified age, see FL Rev. State 322.18(5) (Florida).
The Evidence:
A Cochrane Collaboration Task Force attempted to conduct a systematic of studies assessing the impact of vision screenings for older drivers on motor vehicle crashes, but did not find any studies meeting its criteria. Subzwari S et al. Vision screening of older drivers for preventing road traffic injuries and fatalities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. Art. No.:CD006252. The task force accordingly concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether vision screening programs for individuals above a specified age are effective in reducing crashes among older adults.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Cochrane Collaborative expert panel, laws requiring vision screening are a plausible means of reducing crashes involving older drivers, but there is insufficient evidence to rigorously assess their effectiveness at this time.
Additional Information:
The Physician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers, created by the American Medical Association (AMA) with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is available online and provides substantial information about state policies regarding vision screening.
The International Council of Ophthalmology provides online access to a table of vision requirements for the fifty US states.
Additional Resources: Physician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers, AMA, NHTSA, International Council of Ophthalmology
