Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34624896›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2022

Cigarette Promotions in U.S. Pharmacies.

Andrew B Seidenberg, Lisa Henriksen, Kurt M Ribisl

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew B SeidenbergBehavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5001-2067
Lisa HenriksenStanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9288-3562
Kurt M RibislDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3318-8524
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USStanford University · US

Funding

Project 3: Tobacco Town Policy ModelingP01CA225597 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENRIKSEN, LISA ANNE, LUKE, DOUGLAS A · 2018 to 2023
$11.5M
Cancer Control Education ProgramT32CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa B Gilkey, Melissa A. Troester · 2017 to 2026
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA225597NCI NIH HHS T32 CA057726
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe sale of tobacco products within American pharmacies has generated controversy for several decades, leading two U.S. states and 45 municipalities to adopt tobacco-free pharmacy policies. While previous research has reported cheaper cigarette prices in pharmacies, compared to other retailers, little is known about cigarette promotions in pharmacies, which are associated with increased youth smoking and unplanned cigarette purchases among adults. AIMS AND

methodsBetween May and August 2015, trained data collectors conducted store audits at 2128 tobacco retailers located within 97 U.S. counties in 40 states. Observations were made for three types of cigarette promotions: special price (e.g., $0.30 off/pack), multi-pack promotions (e.g., buy one pack, get one free), and cross-product promotions (e.g., buy a pack of cigarettes and a get free can of snus). We calculated weighted estimates of the proportion of pharmacies and other retailer types with cigarette promotions and used weighted multivariable logistic regression to compare cigarette promotions by tobacco retailer type, accounting for clustering at the county level and controlling for county-level demographic characteristics.

resultsCigarette promotions were observed in 94.0% of pharmacies, more than any other retailer type (e.g., convenience stores: 82.0%, tobacco stores: 77.0%). All retailer types had lower odds of promotions for Marlboro, Newport, Camel, menthol, or any interior cigarette promotion, compared to pharmacies.

conclusionsNearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first known national study to examine prevalence of cigarette promotions in U.S. pharmacies compared to other retailer types. Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. These findings underscore the inherent contradiction of pharmacies serving both as an important component of the health care system, but also as purveyors and promotors of addictive and lethal tobacco products. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacy policies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions.

Indexed as

PharmaciesTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsAdolescentCommerceHumansMarketingUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34624896
PMCPMC8887590
OpenAlexW3202445473

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.