| Literature DB >> 22336332 |
Lisa Schölin1, Charli Eriksson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco has long been known to be one of the most common reasons for sickness and premature deaths in the world. An important aspect of tobacco use is the youth's access to tobacco, and surveillance visits are one way to make sure how retailers are complying with age limit in the tobacco law. In Örebro County, Sweden, a project to reinforce the tobacco legislation was carried out in 2009-2010. One part of the project was surveillance visits that were done according to three different themes, called thematic surveillance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22336332 PMCID: PMC3298798 DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-7-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy ISSN: 1747-597X
Figure 1The qualitative analysis process.
Overview of the surveillance visits
| Number of visits (%) | |
|---|---|
| Askersund | 15 (6.9) |
| Degerfors | 5 (2.3) |
| Hallsberg | 24 (11.1) |
| Karlskoga | 26 (12.0) |
| Kumla | 18 (8.3) |
| Laxå | 7 (3.2) |
| Lekeberg | 8 (3.7) |
| Lindesberg | 14 (6.5) |
| Nora | 10 (4.6) |
| Örebro | 90 (41.5) |
| Total | 217 (100) |
Figure 2Type of sales places in the municipalities.
Frequency of self-monitoring programs according to type of sales place, percentage in parenthesis
| Have self-monitoring program | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (%) | No (%) | Total | |
| Grocery chains | 48 (81.4) | 11 (18.6) | 59 |
| Smaller store/kiosk | 25 (29.1) | 61 (70.9) | 86 |
| Gas station | 21 (70.0) | 9 (30.0) | 30 |
| Restaurants and others | 8 (27.6) | 21 (72.4) | 29 |
| 102 | 102 | 204 | |
χ2(3) = 48.901; p < .001
Frequency of self-monitoring programs and presence of tobacco stickers at the counter, percentage in parenthesis
| Have self-monitoring program | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Have stickers | Yes (%) | No (%) | Total |
| Yes | 76 (76.8) | 63 (23.2) | 139 |
| No | 23 (61.8) | 39 (38.2) | 62 |
| 99 | 102 | 201 | |
χ 2(1) = 5.031; p <.05
Presence of tobacco stickers at the counter according to type of sales place
| Have tobacco stickers | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (%) | No (%) | Total (%) | |
| Grocery chain | 44 (77.2) | 13 (22.8) | 57 (100) |
| Smaller store/kiosk | 67 (72.8) | 25 (27.2) | 92 (100) |
| Gas station | 22 (68.8) | 10 (31.3) | 32 (100) |
| Restaurants and others | 13 (43.2) | 17 (56.7) | 30 (100) |
| 146 | 65 | 211 | |
χ 2(3 =)11.696; p < .01
Logistic regression for lack of self monitoring program
| Adjusted | CI (95%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | p-value | OR | Lower | Upper |
| Smaller kiosks | .000 | 41.225 | 12.617 | 134.703 |
| Gas stations | .29 | 4.010 | 1.155 | 13.922 |
| Restaurants and others | .000 | 45.397 | 9.946 | 207.217 |
| Degerfors | .768 | 1.628 | .064 | 41.316 |
| Karlskoga | .009 | 7.295 | 1.651 | 32.239 |
| Hallsberg | .881 | 1.172 | .320 | 4.288 |
| Askersund | .001 | .049 | .008 | .289 |
| Kumla | .012 | .149 | .034 | .656 |
| Lindesberg | .000 | .016 | .002 | .144 |
| Laxå | .008 | .042 | .004 | .439 |
| Lekeberg | .999 | .000 | .000 | - |
| Nora | .037 | .118 | .016 | .883 |
Cox & Snell R Square = .444; Nagelkerke R Square = .592
SWOT-analysis of thematic surveillance
| • Good contact and positive approach towards the County Administrative Board | |
| • Focus on some parts of the surveillance might have led to that other parts were neglected | |
| • Develop the method and perhaps make revisions in the surveillance protocol so that better accuracy can be achieved | |
| • The feeling of losing an important tool for surveillance work since purchase attempts cannot longer be used |