AIMS: To assess whether sensitivity to point of sale (POS) cigarette displays influences quitting behaviour. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 222 adult smokers were surveyed at baseline in 2006 and followed-up 18 months later. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline sensitivity to POS displays, which included the frequency of 'noticing displays', 'impulse purchasing behaviour' and 'deciding on brand based on POS displays'; smoking status at follow-up. FINDINGS: At follow-up, 17.0% were no longer smokers. After adjusting for covariates, compared to those with low POS display sensitivity, smokers who had a medium or high level of sensitivity to POS displays were significantly less likely to have quit at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14-0.74; OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.08-0.91, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of cigarette pack displays in stores may make it more difficult for smokers to quit smoking successfully.
AIMS: To assess whether sensitivity to point of sale (POS) cigarette displays influences quitting behaviour. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 222 adult smokers were surveyed at baseline in 2006 and followed-up 18 months later. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline sensitivity to POS displays, which included the frequency of 'noticing displays', 'impulse purchasing behaviour' and 'deciding on brand based on POS displays'; smoking status at follow-up. FINDINGS: At follow-up, 17.0% were no longer smokers. After adjusting for covariates, compared to those with low POS display sensitivity, smokers who had a medium or high level of sensitivity to POS displays were significantly less likely to have quit at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14-0.74; OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.08-0.91, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of cigarette pack displays in stores may make it more difficult for smokers to quit smoking successfully.
Authors: Lorraine R Reitzel; Ellen K Cromley; Yisheng Li; Yumei Cao; Richard Dela Mater; Carlos A Mazas; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; Paul M Cinciripini; David W Wetter Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Sara C Hitchman; Melanie A Wakefield; Karin A Kasza; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mohammad Siahpush; Raees A Shaikh; Andrew Hyland; Danielle Smith; Asia Sikora Kessler; Jane Meza; Neng Wan; Melanie Wakefield Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Elizabeth G Klein; Amy K Ferketich; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Mei-Po Kwan; Loren Kenda; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: William G Shadel; Steven C Martino; Claude M Setodji; Michael Dunbar; Deborah Scharf; Kasey G Creswell Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2019-06-01
Authors: Joseph G L Lee; Lisa Henriksen; Shyanika W Rose; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Cendrine D Robinson; Christine Muench; Emily Brede; Romano Endrighi; Edwin H Szeto; Joanna R Sells; John P Lammers; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Grant Izmirlian; Andrew J Waters Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Abraham Brown; Christian Boudreau; Crawford Moodie; Geoffrey T Fong; Grace Y Li; Ann McNeill; Mary E Thompson; Louise M Hassan; Andrew Hyland; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; Gerard Hastings; David Hammond Journal: Tob Control Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 7.552