PURPOSE: To compare the retail distribution and density per population of electronic and conventional cigarettes in smoke-free communities with and without e-cigarette restrictions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study with field observations of retail tobacco stores. SETTING: Two Central Kentucky counties with 100% smoke-free workplace regulations; counties selected on the basis of whether e-cigarette use was restricted. SUBJECTS: Fifty-seven tobacco retailers in two counties, including conventional retailers and stand-alone e-cigarette stores. MEASURES: Type and location of store and products sold; addresses of stores and schools geocoded with ArcGIS. ANALYSIS: Bivariate comparisons between counties, rates and confidence intervals for frequency of tobacco retailers and e-cigarette stores per population. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of tobacco retailers sold e-cigarettes. E-cigarette availability did not differ by whether smoke-free regulation covered e-cigarettes. Rates of tobacco retailers and e-cigarette distributors per 10,000 were 8.29 and 4.40, respectively, in the two-county area. Of the 40 schools, 88% had a tobacco retailer and 68% had an e-cigarette distributor within 1 mile. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, e-cigarette use restriction was not related to store availability. For a relatively new product, e-cigarettes were readily available in retail outlets and close to schools.
PURPOSE: To compare the retail distribution and density per population of electronic and conventional cigarettes in smoke-free communities with and without e-cigarette restrictions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study with field observations of retail tobacco stores. SETTING: Two Central Kentucky counties with 100% smoke-free workplace regulations; counties selected on the basis of whether e-cigarette use was restricted. SUBJECTS: Fifty-seven tobacco retailers in two counties, including conventional retailers and stand-alone e-cigarette stores. MEASURES: Type and location of store and products sold; addresses of stores and schools geocoded with ArcGIS. ANALYSIS: Bivariate comparisons between counties, rates and confidence intervals for frequency of tobacco retailers and e-cigarette stores per population. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of tobacco retailers sold e-cigarettes. E-cigarette availability did not differ by whether smoke-free regulation covered e-cigarettes. Rates of tobacco retailers and e-cigarette distributors per 10,000 were 8.29 and 4.40, respectively, in the two-county area. Of the 40 schools, 88% had a tobacco retailer and 68% had an e-cigarette distributor within 1 mile. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, e-cigarette use restriction was not related to store availability. For a relatively new product, e-cigarettes were readily available in retail outlets and close to schools.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health focus: smoking control; Manuscript format: research; Outcome measure: behavioral, other; Prevention Research; Public Policy; Research purpose: descriptive; Setting: local community; Smoking; Strategy: policy; Study design: nonexperimental; Target population circumstances: geographic location; Target population: youth, adults; Tobacco; Youth
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Akiko S Hosler; Douglas H Done; Isaac H Michaels; Diana C Guarasi; Jamie R Kammer Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 2.830