ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2023
The association between objectively measured exposure to tobacco outlets and smoking cognitions: a study among non-smoking adolescents in four Dutch cities.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A longitudinal analysis of the impact of the local tobacco retail availability and neighbourhood deprivation on male smoking behaviours in Shanghai, China.Health & place · 2024Article
- The association between objectively measured exposure to tobacco outlets and smoking cognitions: a study among non-smoking adolescents in four Dutch cities.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsExposure to tobacco products and advertising at the point of sale may be associated with pro-smoking cognitions. However, previous studies on this topic measured exposure based on self-report and did not include European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the association between objectively measured exposure to tobacco outlets and non-smoking adolescents' smoking attitudes, beliefs and norms.
designThis cross-sectional study combined survey data with Global Positioning Systems data using geographic information system.
settingThe four Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Haarlem and Zwolle.
participantsWe retrieved data of 308 13 to 17-year-old non-smoking adolescents, mainly girls (61%), adolescents attending pre-university secondary education (71%) and without smoking friends (58%). MEASUREMENTS: Exposure was measured with a smartphone app registering for 2 weeks how often participants were within 10 m of a tobacco outlet. We distinguished between outlets without visible tobacco promotion (i.e. supermarkets), with only internal visibility and with both internal and external visibility. Participants' reported smoking cognitions were dichotomised into pro-smoking or anti-smoking. We applied multi-level logistic regression analyses and adjusted for age, sex, educational level and smoking friends.
findingsOn average, adolescents were exposed to 1.18 (SD = 1.23) tobacco outlets per day. Higher exposure to tobacco outlets was associated with higher odds of pro-smoking injunctive norm ( OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.04-1.75). Associations with attitude (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.91-1.38), social beliefs (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.93-1.43), health beliefs (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.97-1.44) and descriptive norm (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.91-1.44) were also positive, but non-significant. Overall, associations were strongest for outlets with internal visibility, for instance, for injunctive norm (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.03-1.81).
conclusionsGlobal Positioning Systems-measured exposure to tobacco outlets was associated with pro-smoking cognitions among non-smoking adolescents in the Netherlands.
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.