. 2016 Apr;106(4):679–685. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.303040

TABLE 2—

Adjusted Percentage of Reduction and Relative Reduction in Tobacco Retailer Density by Cities With and Without Tobacco-Free Pharmacy Laws: California and Massachusetts, 2005–2013

	Tobacco Retailer Density^a
Cities	Adjusted % Reduction Per Unit Time^b (95% CI)	Adjusted Relative Reduction Per Unit Time^b (95% CI)	Adjusted % Reduction From Baseline^c (95% CI)	Adjusted Relative Reduction From Baseline^c (95% CI)
California^d
Cities with the laws	3.5 (3.2, 3.7)	1.62 (1.51, 1.73)	50.7 (47.0, 51.7)	1.44 (1.37, 1.51)
Cities without the laws	2.1 (2.1, 2.2)	1 (Ref)	35.2 (34.8, 35.6)	1 (Ref)
Massachusetts^e
Cities with the laws	...	...	28.5 (11.7, 42.1)	3.18 (1.11, 5.25)
Cities without the laws	...	...	9.0 (5.7, 12.1)	1 (Ref)

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Source. California tobacco license data (2005–2013), Massachusetts tobacco license data (2004–2014), US Census data (2010), American Lung Association and American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation tobacco control policy databases (2005–2014).

^{^a}

Defined as the number of retail establishments per 10 000 persons.

^{^b}

Time unit is by quarter.

^{^c}

Baseline is the effective date of first city that implemented the tobacco-free pharmacy law in each state. California baseline: October 1, 2008; Massachusetts baseline: February 11, 2009.

^{^d}

California model is adjusted for city-level smoke-free workplace policy, electronic cigarettes ban, youth access policy, city demographic characteristics, unemployment rate, and a random intercept for each city.

^{^e}

Massachusetts model is adjusted for city-level electronic cigarettes ban, youth access policy, city demographic characteristics, unemployment rate, a quadratic term of time, and random intercept for each city or town.