ArticleTobacco control2026
Inequities in the compliance of court-ordered point-of-sale tobacco industry corrective statements, USA.
Article in Tobacco control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2006, a federal US court found several major tobacco companies guilty of violating civil racketeering laws for deceiving the public about the harms of cigarettes. After 16 years of legal battles, the court ordered 17 corrective statements to be placed in over 200 000 tobacco retailers who have contracts with the tobacco companies to educate the public on the truth about tobacco-related harms. This study examined if corrective statement compliance was equitable across neighbourhoods.
methodsWe conducted a pooled cross-sectional analysis of compliance audit data collected by a court-approved auditor hired by the tobacco companies (33 977 in-person audits in 29 131 tobacco retailers in all US states). We downloaded census tract-level socio-demographic data from the 2019 to 2023 American Community Survey and fitted multivariable multinomial logistic regression models testing associations between neighbourhood socio-demographic variables and major non-compliance (vs compliance) and minor non-compliance (vs compliance).
resultsOverall compliance was 80.4%. Audits indicated retailers located in neighbourhoods with the highest (vs lowest) percentage of Black residents had 2.21 (95% CI 1.94 to 2.52) times the odds of being major non-compliant (vs compliant). Inequities in major and minor non-compliance were also present by percentage of Hispanic/Latine residents and median household income. DISCUSSION: Compliance with the mandated display of corrective statements, which was intended to increase knowledge and educate the public about the harm of cigarettes and the tobacco industry's deception, was not equitable in this sample. Future policies should include requirements that policy implementation is equitably enforced to ensure all populations realise public health benefits.
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.