Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27697947›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2016

Tobacco retail policy landscape: a longitudinal survey of US states.

Douglas A Luke, Amy A Sorg, Todd Combs, Christopher B Robichaux, Sarah Moreland-Russell, Kurt M Ribisl, Lisa Henriksen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Douglas A LukeCenter for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Amy A SorgCenter for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Todd CombsCenter for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Christopher B RobichauxCenter for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Sarah Moreland-RussellCenter for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Kurt M RibislGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Lisa HenriksenStanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.

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

backgroundThere are ∼380 000 tobacco retailers in the USA, where the largest tobacco companies spend almost $9 billion a year to promote their products. No systematic survey has been conducted of state-level activities to regulate the retail environment, thus little is known about what policies are being planned, proposed or implemented.

methodsThis longitudinal study is the first US survey of state tobacco control programmes (TCPs) about retail policy activities. Surveyed in 2012 and 2014, programme managers (n=46) reported activities in multiple domains: e-cigarettes, retailer density and licensing, non-tax price increases, product placement, advertising and promotion, health warnings and other approaches. Policy activities were reported in one of five levels: no formal activity, planning or advocating, policy was proposed, policy was enacted or policy was implemented. Overall and domain-specific activity scores were calculated for each state.

resultsThe average retail policy activity almost doubled between 2012 and 2014. States with the largest increase in scores included: Minnesota, which established a fee-based tobacco retail licensing system and banned self-service for e-cigarettes and all other tobacco products (OTP); Oregon, Kansas and Maine, all of which banned self-service for OTP; and West Virginia, which banned some types of flavoured OTP.

conclusionsRetail policy activities in US states increased dramatically in a short time. Given what is known about the impact of the retail environment on tobacco use by youth and adults, state and local TCPs may want diversify policy priorities by implementing retail policies alongside tax and smoke-free air laws.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCommerceElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHumansLongitudinal StudiesPublic PolicySmokingSmoking PreventionTobacco ProductsUnited StatesAdvertising and PromotionEnvironmentPricePublic policyTaxation

Identifiers

PMID27697947
PMCPMC5099223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.