Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25689540›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2015

A comparison of three policy approaches for tobacco retailer reduction.

Allison E Myers, Marissa G Hall, Lisa F Isgett, Kurt M Ribisl

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cigarette Promotions in U.S. Pharmacies.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Is Smoking Cessation in Young Adults Associated With Tobacco Retailer Availability in Their Activity Space?Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Allison E MyersDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States. Electronic address: aemyers@live.unc.edu.
Marissa G HallDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Lisa F IsgettDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Kurt M RibislDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Maximizing state & local policies to restrict tobacco marketing at point of saleU01CA154281 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENRIKSEN, LISA ANNE, LUKE, DOUGLAS A · 2011 to 2015
$6.3M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Institute of Medicine recommends that public health agencies restrict the number and regulate the location of tobacco retailers as a means of reducing tobacco use. However, the best policy strategy for tobacco retailer reduction is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to test the percent reduction in the number and density of tobacco retailers in North Carolina resulting from three policies: (1) prohibiting sales of tobacco products in pharmacies or stores with a pharmacy counter, (2) restricting sales of tobacco products within 1000 ft of schools, and (3) regulating to 500 ft the minimum allowable distance between tobacco outlets.

methodsThis study uses data from two lists of tobacco retailers gathered in 2012, one at the statewide level, and another "gold standard" three-county list. Retailers near schools were identified using point and parcel boundaries in ArcMap. Python programming language generated a random lottery system to remove retailers within 500 ft of each other. Analyses were conducted in 2014.

resultsA minimum allowable distance policy had the single greatest impact and would reduce density by 22.1% at the state level, or 20.8% at the county level (range 16.6% to 27.9%). Both a pharmacy and near-schools ban together would reduce density by 29.3% at the state level, or 29.7% at the county level (range 26.3 to 35.6%).

conclusionsThe implementation of policies restricting tobacco sales in pharmacies, near schools, and/or in close proximity to another tobacco retailer would substantially reduce the number and density of tobacco retail outlets.

Indexed as

CommerceGeographic MappingHealth PolicyHumansNorth CarolinaPharmaciesSchoolsTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsPolicyPublic healthTobacco

Identifiers

PMID25689540
PMCPMC4563823
OpenAlexW2078130772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.