Search

Objectives: To assess the quality of evidence on the effectiveness of local US laws restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products.Methods: We conducted a systematic search and qualitative scoping review of English-language papers published through May 2020 that evaluated flavored tobacco sales policies implemented by US jurisdictions during 2010-2019. We constructed a conceptual model for flavored and menthol tobacco sales restriction outcomes, assigned GRADE quality of evidence ratings to policy outcomes evaluated through the included studies, and summarized factors that might explain weak or inconsistent findings.Results: We found moderate to high quality of evidence associating policy implementation with reduced availability, marketing, and sales of policy-restricted products, and decreased youth and adult tobacco use of these products; however, policy exclusions and exemptions, implementation challenges, tobacco industry actions (e.g., marketing of concept-named flavored products; exploiting policy exemptions for certain store types), and consumer responses (e.g., cross-border or illicit purchasing) might undermine or mitigate intended policy effects.Conclusions: Flavored and menthol tobacco product sales restrictions implemented and evaluated in US jurisdictions appear to have achieved some of their intended outcomes; however, deficiencies in study designs, methods, and metrics could contribute to equivocal findings on quality of evidence associating policy implementation and outcomes. Gaps in the evidence are beginning to be filled with research using more rigorous study designs, improved measurement and analytic methods, and longer-term follow-up.Implications: In the absence of comprehensive federal action, US jurisdictions have the obligation to restrict flavored and menthol product sales to protect vulnerable populations from tobacco-related harms. The considerable expenditure of financial resources, political will, and time dedicated to policy adoption and implementation argue for evaluation studies designed to maximize the quality of evidence. This review offers generalizable insights into evaluation findings that can inform efforts to enhance tobacco control policy implementation and impact in the US and globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To review the geographic exposure measures used to characterize the tobacco environment in terms of density of tobacco outlets and proximity to tobacco outlets, and its association with smoking-related outcomes.Methods: We used PubMed and Google Scholar to find articles published until December 2019. The search was restricted to studies that (1) measured the density of and/or proximity to tobacco outlets and (2) included associations with smoking outcomes. The extraction was coordinated by several observers. We gathered data on the place of exposure, methodological approaches, and smoking outcomes.Results: Forty articles were eligible out of 3002 screened papers. Different density and proximity measures were described. 47.4% density calculations were based on simple counts (number of outlets within an area). Kernel density estimations and other measures weighted by the size of the area (outlets per square kilometer), population, and road length were identified. 81.3% of the articles which assessed proximity to tobacco outlets used length distances estimated through the street network. Higher density values were mostly associated with higher smoking prevalence (76.2%), greater tobacco use and smoking initiation (64.3%), and lower cessation outcomes (84.6%). Proximity measures were not associated with any smoking outcome except with cessation (62.5%).Conclusion: Associations between the density of tobacco outlets and smoking outcomes were found regardless of the exposure measure applied. Further research is warranted to better understand how proximity to tobacco outlets may influence the smoking outcomes. This systematic review discusses methodological gaps in the literature and provides insights for future studies exploring the tobacco environment.Implications: Our findings pose some methodological lessons to improve the exposure measures on the tobacco outlet environment. Solving these methodological gaps is crucial to understand the influence of the tobacco environment on the smoking outcomes. Activity spaces should be considered in further analyses because individuals are exposed to tobacco beyond their residence or school neighborhood. Further studies in this research area demand density estimations weighted by the size of the area, population, or road length, or measured using Kernel density estimations. Proximity calculations should be measured through the street network and should consider travel times apart from the length distance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]