ArticleTobacco control2026
Modelling how age-restricted location policies would impact tobacco retailer density in four US states: California, Connecticut, North Carolina and Ohio.
Article in Tobacco control, 2026. 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.
- Density of tobacco retail outlets around school in Lao People's Democratic Republic 2024: a geospatial analysis.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAge-restricted location (ARL) policies are a novel tobacco control strategy that restrict in-person tobacco sales to locations that do not allow underage buyers on their premises, such as tobacco shops. This study aimed to examine how ARL policies might impact different US communities.
methodsPreliminary work geocoded the locations of all tobacco retailers (collected 2023-2024) across four states (California, Connecticut, North Carolina and Ohio) and calculated tobacco retailer density (TRD) at the census tract level. We then simulated an ARL policy by removing all retailers that would no longer be allowed to sell tobacco. Finally, using statistical methods that accounted for varying spatial distributions over census tracts for each state, we conducted pre-post analyses to determine how an ARL policy would reduce TRD overall, and by neighbourhood characteristics (census tract-level poverty, race and ethnicity and rurality).
resultsThe percentage reduction in tobacco retailers was highest for North Carolina (86.4% reduction in TRD), followed by Ohio (85.8%), California (74.4%) and Connecticut (62.4%). Results also indicated that an ARL policy would generally be equity-neutral, meaning that it would not exacerbate the current disparities that exist in TRD. And, in some cases, the policy would be equity-enhancing, such as in the case of reducing existing rural TRD disparities.
conclusionsThe degree of TRD reduction estimated by these simulation models for an ARL policy is more powerful than what has been found for other retailer-focused strategies (eg, prohibiting tobacco retailers close to schools). ARL policies could be a promising and potentially powerful strategy for reducing TRD in the USA.
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.