Andrew B Seidenberg1,2, Lisa Henriksen3, Kurt M Ribisl2,4. 1. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The sale of tobacco products within American pharmacies has generated controversy for several decades, leading two U.S. states and 45 municipalities to adopt tobacco-free pharmacy policies. While previous research has reported cheaper cigarette prices in pharmacies, compared to other retailers, little is known about cigarette promotions in pharmacies, which are associated with increased youth smoking and unplanned cigarette purchases among adults. AIMS AND METHODS: Between May and August 2015, trained data collectors conducted store audits at 2128 tobacco retailers located within 97 U.S. counties in 40 states. Observations were made for three types of cigarette promotions: special price (e.g., $0.30 off/pack), multi-pack promotions (e.g., buy one pack, get one free), and cross-product promotions (e.g., buy a pack of cigarettes and a get free can of snus). We calculated weighted estimates of the proportion of pharmacies and other retailer types with cigarette promotions and used weighted multivariable logistic regression to compare cigarette promotions by tobacco retailer type, accounting for clustering at the county level and controlling for county-level demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Cigarette promotions were observed in 94.0% of pharmacies, more than any other retailer type (e.g., convenience stores: 82.0%, tobacco stores: 77.0%). All retailer types had lower odds of promotions for Marlboro, Newport, Camel, menthol, or any interior cigarette promotion, compared to pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first known national study to examine prevalence of cigarette promotions in U.S. pharmacies compared to other retailer types. Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. These findings underscore the inherent contradiction of pharmacies serving both as an important component of the health care system, but also as purveyors and promotors of addictive and lethal tobacco products. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacy policies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2021.
INTRODUCTION: The sale of tobacco products within American pharmacies has generated controversy for several decades, leading two U.S. states and 45 municipalities to adopt tobacco-free pharmacy policies. While previous research has reported cheaper cigarette prices in pharmacies, compared to other retailers, little is known about cigarette promotions in pharmacies, which are associated with increased youth smoking and unplanned cigarette purchases among adults. AIMS AND METHODS: Between May and August 2015, trained data collectors conducted store audits at 2128 tobacco retailers located within 97 U.S. counties in 40 states. Observations were made for three types of cigarette promotions: special price (e.g., $0.30 off/pack), multi-pack promotions (e.g., buy one pack, get one free), and cross-product promotions (e.g., buy a pack of cigarettes and a get free can of snus). We calculated weighted estimates of the proportion of pharmacies and other retailer types with cigarette promotions and used weighted multivariable logistic regression to compare cigarette promotions by tobacco retailer type, accounting for clustering at the county level and controlling for county-level demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Cigarette promotions were observed in 94.0% of pharmacies, more than any other retailer type (e.g., convenience stores: 82.0%, tobacco stores: 77.0%). All retailer types had lower odds of promotions for Marlboro, Newport, Camel, menthol, or any interior cigarette promotion, compared to pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first known national study to examine prevalence of cigarette promotions in U.S. pharmacies compared to other retailer types. Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. These findings underscore the inherent contradiction of pharmacies serving both as an important component of the health care system, but also as purveyors and promotors of addictive and lethal tobacco products. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacy policies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2021.
Authors: Fatma Romeh M Ali; Linda Neff; Xu Wang; S Sean Hu; Anna Schecter; Margaret Mahoney; Paul C Melstrom Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alexis A Krumme; Niteesh K Choudhry; William H Shrank; Troyen A Brennan; Olga S Matlin; Gregory Brill; Joshua J Gagne Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lisa Henriksen; Nina C Schleicher; Dianne C Barker; Yawen Liu; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 9.308