ArticleTobacco regulatory science2019
Predictive Validity of Tobacco Product Advertising and Retail Availability.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMeasurement properties of key constructs used in tobacco retailer audit studies are infrequently examined. We used diagnostic testing metrics to assess the predictive validity of product advertising and availability.
methodsIn 2017, we documented tobacco product advertising and availability in a sample of New York City and New Jersey retailers (N = 987). We calculated positive predictive values (PPV, ie, probability of availability given advertising is present) and sensitivity scores (ie, probability of advertising given product is available) for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).
resultsAdvertising presence was an imprecise indicator of availability for ENDS (PPV: 82.3%) and smokeless tobacco (PPV: 88.2%), particularly in non-chain convenience stores. Cigars were least likely to be advertised, if available (sensitivity: 27.8%), compared to other product types (sensitivity range: 43.8% - 57.9%).
conclusionsThe suboptimal predictive validity of advertising for certain products suggests that this measure does not necessarily reflect product accessibility in communities. Moreover, differences in sensitivity scores suggest that some product classes rely on strategies other than physical ads to recruit and retain consumers. A better understanding of these constructs and their influence on behavior can help inform more effective retail-based regulatory approaches.
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.