Yenan Zhu1, Keryn E Pasch2, Alexandra Loukas1, Kimberle L Sterling3, Cheryl L Perry4. 1. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San Jacinto D3700, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San Jacinto D3700, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic address: kpasch@austin.utexas.edu. 3. School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Dallas Campus, 6011 Harry Hines Blvd V8.112, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. 4. School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Austin Campus 1616 Guadalupe Street, Suite 6.300, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies examine the impact of objective exposure to point-of-sale (POS) marketing for cigars including little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs) on tobacco use. The present study aimed to examine the relationship between exposure to LCC marketing at the POS and current and future use of LCCs and cigarettes among young adult college students. METHOD: Data on LCC and cigarette use from 4201 young adult students (mean age = 22.8 [SD = 2.3]; 35.9% non-Hispanic whites) attending 24 Texas colleges was linked to objective assessments of POS marketing at 220 tobacco retail outlets within one mile of the colleges. Multilevel logistic regression analyses examined the impact of LCC marketing at the POS on use of LCCs and cigarettes currently and 6-months later. RESULTS: Participants were, on average, exposed to 43 LCC marketing materials per week. Results from cross-sectional analyses indicated that exposure to LCC POS marketing was associated with higher odds of current use of LCCs (AOR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.0002, 1.0053) and cigarettes (AOR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.0050, 1.0075). The relationship between LCC POS marketing exposure and LCC use was not significant in longitudinal models; however, exposure to LCC POS marketing at baseline did predict current cigarette use at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.0021, 1.0052). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest a substantial influence of LCC marketing exposure at the POS. Regulations on LCC marketing at the POS, especially around college campuses, should be considered.
INTRODUCTION: Few studies examine the impact of objective exposure to point-of-sale (POS) marketing for cigars including little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs) on tobacco use. The present study aimed to examine the relationship between exposure to LCC marketing at the POS and current and future use of LCCs and cigarettes among young adult college students. METHOD: Data on LCC and cigarette use from 4201 young adult students (mean age = 22.8 [SD = 2.3]; 35.9% non-Hispanic whites) attending 24 Texas colleges was linked to objective assessments of POS marketing at 220 tobacco retail outlets within one mile of the colleges. Multilevel logistic regression analyses examined the impact of LCC marketing at the POS on use of LCCs and cigarettes currently and 6-months later. RESULTS: Participants were, on average, exposed to 43 LCC marketing materials per week. Results from cross-sectional analyses indicated that exposure to LCC POS marketing was associated with higher odds of current use of LCCs (AOR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.0002, 1.0053) and cigarettes (AOR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.0050, 1.0075). The relationship between LCC POS marketing exposure and LCC use was not significant in longitudinal models; however, exposure to LCC POS marketing at baseline did predict current cigarette use at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.0021, 1.0052). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest a substantial influence of LCC marketing exposure at the POS. Regulations on LCC marketing at the POS, especially around college campuses, should be considered.
Authors: Karen Messer; Martha M White; David R Strong; Baoguang Wang; Yuyan Shi; Kevin P Conway; John P Pierce Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Benjamin J Apelberg; Catherine G Corey; Allison C Hoffman; Megan J Schroeder; Corinne G Husten; Ralph S Caraballo; Cathy L Backinger Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kurt M Ribisl; Heather D'Angelo; Ashley L Feld; Nina C Schleicher; Shelley D Golden; Douglas A Luke; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Joanna E Cohen; Lynn C Planinac; Kara Griffin; Daniel J Robinson; Shawn C O'Connor; Anne Lavack; Francis E Thompson; Joanne Di Nardo Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2008 May-Jun
Authors: Mohammad Siahpush; Raees A Shaikh; Danielle Smith; Andrew Hyland; K Michael Cummings; Asia Sikora Kessler; Michael D Dodd; Les Carlson; Jane Meza; Melanie Wakefield Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lisa Henriksen; Kurt M Ribisl; Todd Rogers; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Dianne M Barker; Nikie Sarris Esquivel; Brett Loomis; Erin Crew; Todd Combs Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Aaron Broun; Lilianna Phan; Danielle A Duarte; Aniruddh Ajith; Bambi Jewett; Erin L Mead-Morse; Kelvin Choi; Julia Chen-Sankey Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Carla J Berg; Albert Melena; Friedner D Wittman; Tomas Robles; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 4.614