Allison E Myers1, Marissa G Hall2, Lisa F Isgett3, Kurt M Ribisl4. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States. Electronic address: aemyers@live.unc.edu. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 3. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Counter Tools, Carrboro, NC, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommends that public health agencies restrict the number and regulate the location of tobacco retailers as a means of reducing tobacco use. However, the best policy strategy for tobacco retailer reduction is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to test the percent reduction in the number and density of tobacco retailers in North Carolina resulting from three policies: (1) prohibiting sales of tobacco products in pharmacies or stores with a pharmacy counter, (2) restricting sales of tobacco products within 1000 ft of schools, and (3) regulating to 500 ft the minimum allowable distance between tobacco outlets. METHODS: This study uses data from two lists of tobacco retailers gathered in 2012, one at the statewide level, and another "gold standard" three-county list. Retailers near schools were identified using point and parcel boundaries in ArcMap. Python programming language generated a random lottery system to remove retailers within 500 ft of each other. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: A minimum allowable distance policy had the single greatest impact and would reduce density by 22.1% at the state level, or 20.8% at the county level (range 16.6% to 27.9%). Both a pharmacy and near-schools ban together would reduce density by 29.3% at the state level, or 29.7% at the county level (range 26.3 to 35.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of policies restricting tobacco sales in pharmacies, near schools, and/or in close proximity to another tobacco retailer would substantially reduce the number and density of tobacco retail outlets.
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommends that public health agencies restrict the number and regulate the location of tobacco retailers as a means of reducing tobacco use. However, the best policy strategy for tobacco retailer reduction is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to test the percent reduction in the number and density of tobacco retailers in North Carolina resulting from three policies: (1) prohibiting sales of tobacco products in pharmacies or stores with a pharmacy counter, (2) restricting sales of tobacco products within 1000 ft of schools, and (3) regulating to 500 ft the minimum allowable distance between tobacco outlets. METHODS: This study uses data from two lists of tobacco retailers gathered in 2012, one at the statewide level, and another "gold standard" three-county list. Retailers near schools were identified using point and parcel boundaries in ArcMap. Python programming language generated a random lottery system to remove retailers within 500 ft of each other. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: A minimum allowable distance policy had the single greatest impact and would reduce density by 22.1% at the state level, or 20.8% at the county level (range 16.6% to 27.9%). Both a pharmacy and near-schools ban together would reduce density by 29.3% at the state level, or 29.7% at the county level (range 26.3 to 35.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of policies restricting tobacco sales in pharmacies, near schools, and/or in close proximity to another tobacco retailer would substantially reduce the number and density of tobacco retail outlets.
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Mark J Travers; K Michael Cummings; Joseph Bauer; Terry Alford; William F Wieczorek Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Maree Scully; Molly McCarthy; Meghan Zacher; Charles Warne; Melanie Wakefield; Victoria White Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Brett R Loomis; Annice E Kim; Andrew H Busey; Matthew C Farrelly; Jeffrey G Willett; Harlan R Juster Journal: Prev Med Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Hannah G Lawman; Kevin A Henry; Annaka Scheeres; Amory Hillengas; Ryan Coffman; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Judy Kruger; Amal Jama; Joseph G L Lee; Sara Kennedy; Asha Banks; Saida Sharapova; Israel Agaku Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Megan E Roberts; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Alice Hinton; Christopher R Browning; Michael D Slater; Wenna Xi; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Allison E Myers; Brian G Southwell; Kurt M Ribisl; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Leslie A Lytle Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Montgomry L Burgoon; Thomas Albani; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Bo Lu; Megan E Roberts; Peter F Craigmile; Christopher Browning; Wenna Xi; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 3.829