Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2025
Cross-sectional examination of tobacco point-of-sale marketing practices by location and type of retail environment in the District of Columbia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hawkins Melissa, Edwards Charis, Amenyo Bright, White Jackie, Boumatar Karima, Ndombo Paola Koki, Dahlquist Carrie, Snelling Anastasia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Despite national and state policy interventions and public health efforts in tobacco control, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death, disease, and disability in the United States. Point-of-sale marketing in the retail environment significantly contributes to tobacco initiation and use among youth and adults, particularly in communities with lower income. The aim of the study was to assess the retail landscape and marketing practices for tobacco products by location and retail store environment.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the retail landscape and marketing practices of tobacco products among a random sample of licensed retailers in the District of Columbia (DC) (n=264) from June 2024 to April 2025, including product availability, promotion, price, and placement. Predictors of marketing practices were evaluated by geographical location and store type for flavored and non-flavored products including cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, chew/snuff/loose tobacco, e-cigarettes, and hookah. Data were collected using an adapted version of the Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (STARS) instrument.
RESULTS: The most available products were cigarillos (80%, n=215), cigarettes (78%, n=206), and chew/snuff/loose tobacco (67%, n=176). Convenience stores were more likely to have price promotions [χ2(2, N=264)=13.4, p<0.01], tobacco products placed <12 inches of toys, candy, or gum [χ2(2, N=264)=16, p<0.001], and tobacco products advertised on the store exterior [χ2(2, N=264)=24.9, p<0.001] compared to all other store types. Lower income communities also had a higher frequency of price promotions [χ2(7, N=264)=34.99, p<0.001], products placed within 12 inches of toys, candy, or gum, [χ2(7, N=264)=41.28, p<0.001] and tobacco products advertised on the store exterior. We found significantly more types of marketing in lower income communities, particularly for cigarillos, which were disproportionately available, marketed, and lower priced.
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the way tobacco products are marketed and promoted across DC based on store type and location. Youth and adults in communities with lower income are at increased risk of being exposed to tobacco products and marketing. Additional studies examining restrictions on point-of-sale marketing practices, particularly price promotions, are important to complement regulatory interventions and policies.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the retail landscape and marketing practices of tobacco products among a random sample of licensed retailers in the District of Columbia (DC) (n=264) from June 2024 to April 2025, including product availability, promotion, price, and placement. Predictors of marketing practices were evaluated by geographical location and store type for flavored and non-flavored products including cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, chew/snuff/loose tobacco, e-cigarettes, and hookah. Data were collected using an adapted version of the Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (STARS) instrument.
RESULTS: The most available products were cigarillos (80%, n=215), cigarettes (78%, n=206), and chew/snuff/loose tobacco (67%, n=176). Convenience stores were more likely to have price promotions [χ2(2, N=264)=13.4, p<0.01], tobacco products placed <12 inches of toys, candy, or gum [χ2(2, N=264)=16, p<0.001], and tobacco products advertised on the store exterior [χ2(2, N=264)=24.9, p<0.001] compared to all other store types. Lower income communities also had a higher frequency of price promotions [χ2(7, N=264)=34.99, p<0.001], products placed within 12 inches of toys, candy, or gum, [χ2(7, N=264)=41.28, p<0.001] and tobacco products advertised on the store exterior. We found significantly more types of marketing in lower income communities, particularly for cigarillos, which were disproportionately available, marketed, and lower priced.
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the way tobacco products are marketed and promoted across DC based on store type and location. Youth and adults in communities with lower income are at increased risk of being exposed to tobacco products and marketing. Additional studies examining restrictions on point-of-sale marketing practices, particularly price promotions, are important to complement regulatory interventions and policies.