ArticleTobacco control2019
Retailers' perspectives on selling tobacco in a low-income San Francisco neighbourhood after California's $2 tobacco tax increase.
Article in Tobacco control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Area-level sociodemographic differences in tobacco availability examined with nationwide tobacco product retail licence data in Finland.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Tobacco company agreements with tobacco retailers for price discounts and prime placement of products and advertising: a scoping review.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Potentially Identifying Variables Reported in 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles: Implications for Data Sharing and Secondary Analysis.Forum, qualitative social research · 2023Article
- Embracing policy implementation science to ensure translation of evidence to cancer control policy.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- E-cigarette and cigarette purchasing among young adults before and after implementation of California's tobacco 21 policy.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCalifornia's tobacco tax increased by $2.00 per pack in 2017. Although such increases are among the most effective tobacco control strategies, little is known about their impact from the perspective of corner store owners in low-income neighbourhoods with high concentrations of tobacco outlets.
methodsWe interviewed 38 corner store owners and managers in San Francisco's Tenderloin, the district with the city's highest tobacco outlet density, 60-90 days following implementation of the tax increase. Questions focused on perceptions of the impact of the higher tobacco tax on their revenues, customers and tobacco company promotions. We used qualitative content analysis to identify, compare and reconcile key themes.
resultsMost retailers reported a decline in cigarette sales, with customers buying fewer cigarettes, switching to cheaper brands or other products like marijuana, or trying to quit smoking. Retailers described challenges associated with running a small business and selling tobacco and concerns about selling a product that is 'bad' for customers' health. Contrary to expectation, tobacco companies appeared to be offering few product promotions in this neighbourhood.
conclusionsSmall, independent retailers' concerns, about selling tobacco and about the health and well-being of customers, suggest that such retailers may be important allies in tobacco control efforts,particularly those focused on the point-of-sale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.