Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28651376›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2018

Comparison of Sampling Strategies for Tobacco Retailer Inspections to Maximize Coverage in Vulnerable Areas and Minimize Cost.

Joseph G L Lee, Bonnie E Shook-Sa, J Michael Bowling, Kurt M Ribisl

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Neighborhood Inequities in Tobacco Product Descriptors, Washington, DC, 2018-2019.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond Strong Enforcement: Understanding the Factors Related to Retailer Compliance With Tobacco 21.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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.

Joseph G L LeeDepartment of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Bonnie E Shook-SaCarolina Survey Research Laboratory, Department of Biostatistics, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.
J Michael BowlingDepartment of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.
Kurt M RibislDepartment of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.

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

Introduction: In the United States, tens of thousands of inspections of tobacco retailers are conducted each year. Various sampling choices can reduce travel costs, emphasize enforcement in areas with greater noncompliance, and allow for comparability between states and over time. We sought to develop a model sampling strategy for state tobacco retailer inspections. Methods: Using a 2014 list of 10,161 North Carolina tobacco retailers, we compared results from simple random sampling; stratified, clustered at the ZIP code sampling; and, stratified, clustered at the census tract sampling. We conducted a simulation of repeated sampling and compared approaches for their comparative level of precision, coverage, and retailer dispersion. Results: While maintaining an adequate design effect and statistical precision appropriate for a public health enforcement program, both stratified, clustered ZIP- and tract-based approaches were feasible. Both ZIP and tract strategies yielded improvements over simple random sampling, with relative improvements, respectively, of average distance between retailers (reduced 5.0% and 1.9%), percent Black residents in sampled neighborhoods (increased 17.2% and 32.6%), percent Hispanic residents in sampled neighborhoods (reduced 2.2% and increased 18.3%), percentage of sampled retailers located near schools (increased 61.3% and 37.5%), and poverty rate in sampled neighborhoods (increased 14.0% and 38.2%). Conclusions: States can make retailer inspections more efficient and targeted with stratified, clustered sampling. Use of statistically appropriate sampling strategies like these should be considered by states, researchers, and the Food and Drug Administration to improve program impact and allow for comparisons over time and across states. Implications: The authors present a model tobacco retailer sampling strategy for promoting compliance and reducing costs that could be used by US states and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The design is feasible to implement in North Carolina. Use of the sampling design would help document the impact of FDA's compliance and enforcement program, save money, and emphasize inspections in areas where they are needed most. FDA should consider requiring probability-based sampling in their inspections contracts with states and private contractors.

Indexed as

CommerceCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNorth CarolinaPovertyRandom AllocationResidence CharacteristicsTobacco ProductsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID28651376
PMCPMC6154981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.