Exposure to the Tobacco Power Wall Increases Adolescents’ Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future

Exposure to the Tobacco Power Wall Increases Adolescents’ Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in... Abstract Introduction Adolescents’ e-cigarette use is now more prevalent than their combustible cigarette use. Youth are exposed to e-cigarette advertising at retail point-of-sale (POS) locations via the tobacco power wall (TPW), but no studies have assessed whether exposure to the TPW influences susceptibility to future e-cigarette use. Methods The study was conducted in the RAND Store Lab (RSL), a life-sized replica of a convenience store developed to experimentally evaluate how POS advertising influences tobacco use risk under simulated shopping conditions. In a between-subjects experiment, 160 adolescents (M age = 13.82; 53% female, 56% white) were randomized to shop in the RSL under one of two conditions: (1) TPW located behind the cashier (n = 80); or (2) TPW hidden behind an opaque wall (n = 80). Youths rated willingness to use e-cigarettes (“If one of your best friends were to offer you an e-cigarette, would you try it?”; 1 = definitely not, 10 = definitely yes) before and after exposure. Linear regression assessed differences in pre-post changes in willingness to use across conditions. Results Ever-use of e-cigarettes was 5%; use of cigarettes was 8%; use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes was 4%. There were no differences between TPW conditions on these or other baseline variables (eg, age, gender). Compared to the hidden condition, TPW exposure was associated with greater increases in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future (B = 1.15, standard error [SE] = 0.50, p = .02). Conclusions Efforts to regulate visibility of the TPW at POS may help to reduce youths’ susceptibility to initiating e-cigarettes as well as conventional tobacco products like cigarettes. Implications Past work suggests that exposure to the TPW in common retail settings, like convenience stores, may increase adolescents’ susceptibility to smoking cigarettes. This experimental study builds upon prior research to show that exposure to the TPW at retail POS similarly increases adolescents’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Efforts to regulate the visibility of the TPW in retail settings may help to reduce youths’ susceptibility to initiating nicotine and tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Introduction Electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems (hereafter, e-cigarettes) are now the most commonly used nicotine/tobacco products among youth in the United States.1,2 Although evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are less risky to health than combustible tobacco products,3–5 they are not without harm (eg, users risk nicotine dependence; eg, ref.6), and long-term health risks of e-cigarette use are yet unknown. Moreover, recent longitudinal studies suggest that e-cigarette use by adolescents and young adults is associated with progression to using more harmful tobacco products.7 Thus, the current “epidemic” of e-cigarette use by youth is a serious public health concern.8 Use of e-cigarettes has risen in line with increased tobacco industry spending on e-cigarette advertising,9 suggesting that increased availability and awareness of these products has bolstered popularity among youth. Survey research suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertising is correlated with increased e-cigarette use in adolescents10 and increased susceptibility to future use among nonusers.11,12 E-cigarettes have also become more prominent in retail spaces recently, and sales in settings like convenience stores have increased substantially.13 The most common source of exposure to e-cigarette advertising is the retail point-of-sale (POS) setting.9,12 Annually, over 14 million youth in the United States—more than half of middle and high school students—are exposed to e-cigarette advertising at retail POS.9 Advertising in this setting includes billboard advertising and the “tobacco power wall” (TPW): prominent, expansive displays of many different tobacco products—including e-cigarettes—at the POS location. Emerging evidence suggests that exposure to the TPW is associated with susceptibility to future cigarette smoking.14 However, little is known about the impact of exposure to the TPW at retail POS on susceptibility to e-cigarette use. The current study experimentally examined the effect of exposure to a TPW that displayed combustible tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes on susceptibility to future ENDS use—specifically, willingness to use e-cigarettes—among adolescents. The study utilized the RAND Store Lab (RSL), an innovative convenience store retail laboratory that “sells” tobacco products in addition to other products typically found in such stores.14 The RSL allows for manipulation of key ingredients of the POS retail environment, including placement of TPW displays, in a highly controlled, but externally and ecologically valid way. In this between-subjects experimental study, we compared two conditions (TPW visible behind a cashier; TPW hidden from view) to examine the impact of exposure to the TPW on youths’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Findings have implications for regulation of e-cigarette advertising at retail POS. Methods Participants Participants in this study were 160 middle and high school students, ages 11–17 years (M = 13.69, SD = 1.98). Individuals were recruited using print, internet, and radio advertisements around the city of Pittsburgh in 2014–2015. Advertisements indicated that the study was about teens’ convenience store purchasing habits. Recruitment materials contained no information about smoking or tobacco to reduce potential sample biases. Parents of interested participants telephoned the study center to complete a brief eligibility screening and provided written consent. Adolescents assented to their own participation. Procedure Data collection occurred at the RSL, a life-sized replica of a convenience store, located within an office building in Pittsburgh that is only open to study participants. Details about the development of the RSL and photographs of its interior are published elsewhere.14 The RSL stocks over 650 unique products (eg, dairy products, snack foods, beverages), and stocking and product arrangement adhere to industry guidelines. Product posters appear on the walls, shelves, and windows of the store. Posters for tobacco products appear in the windows and doors of the RSL, as well as on the TPW (the same tobacco posters appeared on the RSL windows and doors, regardless of experimental condition). Prior to the experiment, research assistants explained general parameters of the study to participants and parents (eg, the study involved adolescents’ convenience store shopping habits; involved minimal risk), and stated that some parts of the study could not be revealed beforehand because that knowledge could affect study outcomes. Participants and parents were informed that they would be provided with all information about the study upon completion. Their consent/assent indicated agreement to participate in the study without full knowledge of the details of the study. The study was approved by RAND’s Human Subjects Protection Committee. Before entering the RSL, participants completed a questionnaire that assessed demographic information, history of smoking and other forms of tobacco use, and convenience store shopping habits. Participants were then randomized to one of two experimental conditions: 1) the cashier condition, in which the TPW appeared behind the cashier; and 2) the hidden condition, in which the TPW was hidden from view by an opaque wall behind the cashier; a sign on the wall read “Tobacco Sold Here.” In the cashier condition, the TPW displayed primarily cigarettes (~80% of the total display area), with brands corresponding to the US market share for cigarettes. The TPW also displayed smokeless tobacco products, cigars/cigarillos, and e-cigarettes (5–10% of the display area). Upon entering the RSL, participants were provided with $10 and instructed to shop for whatever items they wanted. They were told to check-out and pay for the items as they would in any convenience store; there was no limit imposed on time spent “shopping.” A research assistant acted as the RSL cashier when participants were ready to complete their “purchases.” After exiting the RSL, participants completed a questionnaire that included items assessing willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Participants were then debriefed, shown a 20-minute video about cigarette advertising and media literacy, and given a $50 gift card. Measures Dependent Variables Willingness to Use E-cigarettes. In both baseline and post-shopping questionnaires, participants rated their willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future, one index of susceptibility to future product use,15,16 on a 10-point scale (1 = definitely not, 10 = definitely yes) in response to the following: “If one of your best friends were to offer you an e-cigarette, would you try it?”.16 In addition, because youth show more favorable attitudes toward flavored e-cigarettes,17 a separate item asked specifically about flavored e-cigarettes: “If one of your best friends were to offer you a flavored e-cigarette (chocolate, mint, apple, etc.), would you try it?” (flavored).18 The two items were summed to create a total willingness score (Cronbach’s alpha = .95). Pre-shopping willingness scores were subtracted from post-shopping scores to create change scores for analysis. Baseline Questionnaire Measures Lifetime and Past-Month Tobacco Use. Participants were asked if they had ever used cigarettes or e-cigarettes in their lifetime. They also reported whether they had used these products in the past month. Past-Month Exposure to E-cigarette Advertising. Participants reported how often (never, hardly ever, some of the time, most of the time) they had seen advertisements for e-cigarettes in the past month (“During the past 30 days, about how often have you seen advertisements for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes…”).9 Separate items asked about exposure through each of the following channels: convenience stores, print magazines or newspapers, outdoor billboards or signs, television programs, or while visiting websites. Demographics. Participants reported their age, race/ethnicity (white, black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, multiple races/ethnicities, other race/ethnicity), and gender. Analyses We used t-tests and chi-square analyses to assess bivariate associations between participant characteristics (demographics, tobacco use, self-reported e-cigarette advertising exposure) and TPW condition. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) assessed the association between TPW condition (cashier vs. hidden) and pre-post shopping change scores in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. The model controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, ever-use of e-cigarettes, and self-reported frequency of past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience stores. We also conducted exploratory post hoc analyses to assess whether the effect of the TPW on change scores was moderated by participant age (continuous) or age category (11–13 years old vs. 14 to 17 years old; based on median split). Results Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were no differences between TPW conditions on demographic characteristics, cigarette use, e-cigarette use, or self-reported past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising (ps > .16). The sample (n = 160) was 47% male, 56% non-Hispanic white, 28% non-Hispanic black, 2% Asian, 4% multiple races/ethnicities, 5% Hispanic, 5% other races/ethnicities. Youth averaged 13.82 (SD = 1.98) years old. Approximately 5% of participants reported lifetime use of e-cigarettes; 8% reported having used cigarettes, and 4% reported having used both e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Slightly more youth reported past-month e-cigarette use (3%) than cigarette use (2%); all past-month cigarette users also reported past-month e-cigarette use. Table 1. Participant Characteristics Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Open in new tab Table 1. Participant Characteristics Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Open in new tab Convenience stores were the most common source of exposure to e-cigarette advertising: over three-quarters (78%) reported some exposure to e-cigarette advertising in stores, and 14% reported seeing e-cigarette ads in convenience stores most of the time. Television was the next most common source of advertising exposure, with over two-thirds (68%) of youth endorsing some exposure; 5% of participants reported seeing e-cigarette ads on television most of the time. Table 2 shows baseline and post-exposure ratings of willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future, by TPW condition. There were no differences in baseline total willingness scores across conditions (p = .36). Controlling for demographic characteristics, ever-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience stores, exposure to the visible TPW was associated with significant increases in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future (B = 1.15, standard error [SE] = 0.50, p = .02). Effects did not differ by participant age or age category. Table 2. Effect of Tobacco Power Wall Exposure on Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Bolded values are means (SDs) and do not have as associated statistical test. No p-value additional p-values should be listed in this table. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. aANCOVA assessed the effect of power wall condition on pre-post change in total willingness score, and controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, and ever-use of e-cigarettes. Open in new tab Table 2. Effect of Tobacco Power Wall Exposure on Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Bolded values are means (SDs) and do not have as associated statistical test. No p-value additional p-values should be listed in this table. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. aANCOVA assessed the effect of power wall condition on pre-post change in total willingness score, and controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, and ever-use of e-cigarettes. Open in new tab Discussion This study is the first to experimentally examine the effect of exposure to a TPW in a retail POS environment on adolescents’ susceptibility to future e-cigarette use. The current study builds upon prior work examining TPW exposure and susceptibility to cigarette smoking to show that exposure to the TPW that primarily displays combustible products can similarly increase youths’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Consistent with past research,9,12 retail POS was the most common source of past-month e-cigarette advertising exposure reported by youth. Controlling for demographics, prior tobacco use, and self-reported recent exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience store settings, exposure to a visible TPW was associated with increased willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Our findings align with recent correlational studies, which suggest that adolescents’ self-reported exposure to advertising at retail POS correlates with increased susceptibility to using e-cigarettes in the future.11,12 These findings have important implications for efforts to mitigate the impact of nicotine and tobacco product advertising at POS on adolescent e-cigarette use. In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act19 gave the FDA authority to regulate how cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are advertised. Further, under the “deeming” rule,20 effective August 2016, FDA assumed the authority to regulate advertising of additional tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA can restrict some forms of POS advertising and provide guidance for states and local communities to regulate advertising at POS. Because POS advertising is the most common channel through which youths are exposed to e-cigarette advertising,9,12 these findings suggest that policies aimed at limiting exposure to e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising at POS help reducing the impact of industry advertising efforts on future nicotine and tobacco product use among adolescents. This study was subject to limitations. First, although similar self-reported measures of susceptibility have been shown to predict adolescents’ future e-cigarette use,15 we did not assess actual ENDS use behavior in this experiment. Further, the TPW display was dominated by cigarette products; it is unclear how different product mixes within the TPW and/or differential placement of e-cigarette advertising in the POS environment may affect youths’ susceptibility to using and perceptions of e-cigarettes. Future research is needed to address these questions, particularly as e-cigarettes gain an increasingly prominent presence in retail environments that have historically been dominated by combustible products. Although the RSL is closely modeled after a real convenience store, it is an artificial environment; this experimental investigation may not be a perfect proxy for effects of POS advertising on adolescent e-cigarette use in the real world. These limitations notwithstanding, our findings suggest the need to consider policies that limit e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising at retail POS settings to mitigate the effects of industry advertising on adolescents’ use of e-cigarettes. Funding This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) (R01CA175209). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Food and Drug Administration. Declaration of Interests None declared. Acknowledgments The authors thank Angela Sicker and Daniela Kusuke for assistance with data collection. References 1. Jamal A , Gentzke A , Hu SS et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students - United States, 2011-2016 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2017 ; 66 ( 23 ): 597 – 603 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2. Johnston LD , O’Malley PM , Miech RA , Bachman JG , Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2015: Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use . Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research ; 2016 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 3. Farsalinos KE , Kistler KA , Gillman G , Voudris V . Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins . Nicotine Tob Res . 2015 ; 17 ( 2 ): 168 – 174 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4. Goniewicz ML , Knysak J , Gawron M et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes . Tob Control . 2014 ; 23 ( 2 ): 133 – 139 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5. Stephens WE . Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e-cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke . Tob Control . 2018 ; 27 : 10 – 17 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 6. Foulds J , Veldheer S , Yingst J et al. Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking E-cigarette users . Nicotine Tob Res . 2015 ; 17 ( 2 ): 186 – 192 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Soneji S , Barrington-Trimis JL , Wills TA et al. Association between initial use of e-Cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis . JAMA Pediatr . 2017 ; 171 ( 8 ): 788 – 797 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8. Kong G , Krishnan-Sarin S . A call to end the epidemic of adolescent E-cigarette use . Drug Alcohol Depend . 2017 ; 174 : 215 – 221 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Singh T , Marynak K , Arrazola RA , Cox S , Rolle IV , King BA . Vital signs: exposure to electronic cigarette advertising among middle school and high school students - United States, 2014 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2016 ; 64 ( 52 ): 1403 – 1408 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10. Singh T , Agaku IT , Arrazola RA et al. Exposure to advertisements and electronic cigarette use among US middle and high school students . Pediatrics . 2016 ; 137 ( 5 ): e20154155 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11. Dai H , Hao J . Exposure to advertisements and susceptibility to electronic cigarette use among youth . J Adolesc Health . 2016 ; 59 ( 6 ): 620 – 626 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12. Mantey DS , Cooper MR , Clendennen SL , Pasch KE , Perry CL . E-Cigarette marketing exposure is associated with e-cigarette use among US youth . J Adolesc Health . 2016 ; 58 ( 6 ): 686 – 690 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13. Day HR , Ambrose BK , Schroeder MJ , Corey CG . Point of sale scanner data for rapid surveillance of the e-cigarette market . Tob Regul Sci . 2017 ; 3 ( 3 ): 325 – 332 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 14. Shadel WG , Martino SC , Setodji CM et al. Hiding the tobacco power wall reduces cigarette smoking risk in adolescents: using an experimental convenience store to assess tobacco regulatory options at retail point-of-sale . Tob Control . 2016 ; 25 : 679 – 684 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 15. Cole AG , Kennedy RD , Chaurasia A , Leatherdale ST . Exploring the predictive validity of the susceptibility to smoking construct for tobacco cigarettes, alternative tobacco products, and e-cigarettes [published online ahead of print December 6, 2017]. Nicotine Tob Res . doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx265 WorldCat 16. Pierce JP , Choi WS , Gilpin EA , Farkas AJ , Merritt RK . Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States . Health Psychol . 1996 ; 15 ( 5 ): 355 – 361 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17. Pepper JK , Ribisl KM , Brewer NT . Adolescents’ interest in trying flavoured e-cigarettes . Tob Control . 2016 ; 25 ( Suppl 2 ): ii62 – ii66 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 18. Pepper JK , Reiter PL , McRee AL , Cameron LD , Gilkey MB , Brewer NT . Adolescent males’ awareness of and willingness to try electronic cigarettes . J Adolesc Health . 2013 ; 52 ( 2 ): 144 – 150 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 . Pub. L. 111–31, 123 Stat 1776 . https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf WorldCat COPAC 20. United States Government, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration . Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products and required warning statements for tobacco products. Final Rule . Fed Regist . 2016 ; 81 ( 90 ): 28973 – 9106 . PubMed WorldCat © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nicotine and Tobacco Research Oxford University Press

Exposure to the Tobacco Power Wall Increases Adolescents’ Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/exposure-to-the-tobacco-power-wall-increases-adolescents-willingness-tv4MhAhiSI
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Adolescents’ e-cigarette use is now more prevalent than their combustible cigarette use. Youth are exposed to e-cigarette advertising at retail point-of-sale (POS) locations via the tobacco power wall (TPW), but no studies have assessed whether exposure to the TPW influences susceptibility to future e-cigarette use. Methods The study was conducted in the RAND Store Lab (RSL), a life-sized replica of a convenience store developed to experimentally evaluate how POS advertising influences tobacco use risk under simulated shopping conditions. In a between-subjects experiment, 160 adolescents (M age = 13.82; 53% female, 56% white) were randomized to shop in the RSL under one of two conditions: (1) TPW located behind the cashier (n = 80); or (2) TPW hidden behind an opaque wall (n = 80). Youths rated willingness to use e-cigarettes (“If one of your best friends were to offer you an e-cigarette, would you try it?”; 1 = definitely not, 10 = definitely yes) before and after exposure. Linear regression assessed differences in pre-post changes in willingness to use across conditions. Results Ever-use of e-cigarettes was 5%; use of cigarettes was 8%; use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes was 4%. There were no differences between TPW conditions on these or other baseline variables (eg, age, gender). Compared to the hidden condition, TPW exposure was associated with greater increases in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future (B = 1.15, standard error [SE] = 0.50, p = .02). Conclusions Efforts to regulate visibility of the TPW at POS may help to reduce youths’ susceptibility to initiating e-cigarettes as well as conventional tobacco products like cigarettes. Implications Past work suggests that exposure to the TPW in common retail settings, like convenience stores, may increase adolescents’ susceptibility to smoking cigarettes. This experimental study builds upon prior research to show that exposure to the TPW at retail POS similarly increases adolescents’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Efforts to regulate the visibility of the TPW in retail settings may help to reduce youths’ susceptibility to initiating nicotine and tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Introduction Electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems (hereafter, e-cigarettes) are now the most commonly used nicotine/tobacco products among youth in the United States.1,2 Although evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are less risky to health than combustible tobacco products,3–5 they are not without harm (eg, users risk nicotine dependence; eg, ref.6), and long-term health risks of e-cigarette use are yet unknown. Moreover, recent longitudinal studies suggest that e-cigarette use by adolescents and young adults is associated with progression to using more harmful tobacco products.7 Thus, the current “epidemic” of e-cigarette use by youth is a serious public health concern.8 Use of e-cigarettes has risen in line with increased tobacco industry spending on e-cigarette advertising,9 suggesting that increased availability and awareness of these products has bolstered popularity among youth. Survey research suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertising is correlated with increased e-cigarette use in adolescents10 and increased susceptibility to future use among nonusers.11,12 E-cigarettes have also become more prominent in retail spaces recently, and sales in settings like convenience stores have increased substantially.13 The most common source of exposure to e-cigarette advertising is the retail point-of-sale (POS) setting.9,12 Annually, over 14 million youth in the United States—more than half of middle and high school students—are exposed to e-cigarette advertising at retail POS.9 Advertising in this setting includes billboard advertising and the “tobacco power wall” (TPW): prominent, expansive displays of many different tobacco products—including e-cigarettes—at the POS location. Emerging evidence suggests that exposure to the TPW is associated with susceptibility to future cigarette smoking.14 However, little is known about the impact of exposure to the TPW at retail POS on susceptibility to e-cigarette use. The current study experimentally examined the effect of exposure to a TPW that displayed combustible tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes on susceptibility to future ENDS use—specifically, willingness to use e-cigarettes—among adolescents. The study utilized the RAND Store Lab (RSL), an innovative convenience store retail laboratory that “sells” tobacco products in addition to other products typically found in such stores.14 The RSL allows for manipulation of key ingredients of the POS retail environment, including placement of TPW displays, in a highly controlled, but externally and ecologically valid way. In this between-subjects experimental study, we compared two conditions (TPW visible behind a cashier; TPW hidden from view) to examine the impact of exposure to the TPW on youths’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Findings have implications for regulation of e-cigarette advertising at retail POS. Methods Participants Participants in this study were 160 middle and high school students, ages 11–17 years (M = 13.69, SD = 1.98). Individuals were recruited using print, internet, and radio advertisements around the city of Pittsburgh in 2014–2015. Advertisements indicated that the study was about teens’ convenience store purchasing habits. Recruitment materials contained no information about smoking or tobacco to reduce potential sample biases. Parents of interested participants telephoned the study center to complete a brief eligibility screening and provided written consent. Adolescents assented to their own participation. Procedure Data collection occurred at the RSL, a life-sized replica of a convenience store, located within an office building in Pittsburgh that is only open to study participants. Details about the development of the RSL and photographs of its interior are published elsewhere.14 The RSL stocks over 650 unique products (eg, dairy products, snack foods, beverages), and stocking and product arrangement adhere to industry guidelines. Product posters appear on the walls, shelves, and windows of the store. Posters for tobacco products appear in the windows and doors of the RSL, as well as on the TPW (the same tobacco posters appeared on the RSL windows and doors, regardless of experimental condition). Prior to the experiment, research assistants explained general parameters of the study to participants and parents (eg, the study involved adolescents’ convenience store shopping habits; involved minimal risk), and stated that some parts of the study could not be revealed beforehand because that knowledge could affect study outcomes. Participants and parents were informed that they would be provided with all information about the study upon completion. Their consent/assent indicated agreement to participate in the study without full knowledge of the details of the study. The study was approved by RAND’s Human Subjects Protection Committee. Before entering the RSL, participants completed a questionnaire that assessed demographic information, history of smoking and other forms of tobacco use, and convenience store shopping habits. Participants were then randomized to one of two experimental conditions: 1) the cashier condition, in which the TPW appeared behind the cashier; and 2) the hidden condition, in which the TPW was hidden from view by an opaque wall behind the cashier; a sign on the wall read “Tobacco Sold Here.” In the cashier condition, the TPW displayed primarily cigarettes (~80% of the total display area), with brands corresponding to the US market share for cigarettes. The TPW also displayed smokeless tobacco products, cigars/cigarillos, and e-cigarettes (5–10% of the display area). Upon entering the RSL, participants were provided with $10 and instructed to shop for whatever items they wanted. They were told to check-out and pay for the items as they would in any convenience store; there was no limit imposed on time spent “shopping.” A research assistant acted as the RSL cashier when participants were ready to complete their “purchases.” After exiting the RSL, participants completed a questionnaire that included items assessing willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Participants were then debriefed, shown a 20-minute video about cigarette advertising and media literacy, and given a $50 gift card. Measures Dependent Variables Willingness to Use E-cigarettes. In both baseline and post-shopping questionnaires, participants rated their willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future, one index of susceptibility to future product use,15,16 on a 10-point scale (1 = definitely not, 10 = definitely yes) in response to the following: “If one of your best friends were to offer you an e-cigarette, would you try it?”.16 In addition, because youth show more favorable attitudes toward flavored e-cigarettes,17 a separate item asked specifically about flavored e-cigarettes: “If one of your best friends were to offer you a flavored e-cigarette (chocolate, mint, apple, etc.), would you try it?” (flavored).18 The two items were summed to create a total willingness score (Cronbach’s alpha = .95). Pre-shopping willingness scores were subtracted from post-shopping scores to create change scores for analysis. Baseline Questionnaire Measures Lifetime and Past-Month Tobacco Use. Participants were asked if they had ever used cigarettes or e-cigarettes in their lifetime. They also reported whether they had used these products in the past month. Past-Month Exposure to E-cigarette Advertising. Participants reported how often (never, hardly ever, some of the time, most of the time) they had seen advertisements for e-cigarettes in the past month (“During the past 30 days, about how often have you seen advertisements for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes…”).9 Separate items asked about exposure through each of the following channels: convenience stores, print magazines or newspapers, outdoor billboards or signs, television programs, or while visiting websites. Demographics. Participants reported their age, race/ethnicity (white, black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, multiple races/ethnicities, other race/ethnicity), and gender. Analyses We used t-tests and chi-square analyses to assess bivariate associations between participant characteristics (demographics, tobacco use, self-reported e-cigarette advertising exposure) and TPW condition. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) assessed the association between TPW condition (cashier vs. hidden) and pre-post shopping change scores in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. The model controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, ever-use of e-cigarettes, and self-reported frequency of past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience stores. We also conducted exploratory post hoc analyses to assess whether the effect of the TPW on change scores was moderated by participant age (continuous) or age category (11–13 years old vs. 14 to 17 years old; based on median split). Results Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were no differences between TPW conditions on demographic characteristics, cigarette use, e-cigarette use, or self-reported past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising (ps > .16). The sample (n = 160) was 47% male, 56% non-Hispanic white, 28% non-Hispanic black, 2% Asian, 4% multiple races/ethnicities, 5% Hispanic, 5% other races/ethnicities. Youth averaged 13.82 (SD = 1.98) years old. Approximately 5% of participants reported lifetime use of e-cigarettes; 8% reported having used cigarettes, and 4% reported having used both e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Slightly more youth reported past-month e-cigarette use (3%) than cigarette use (2%); all past-month cigarette users also reported past-month e-cigarette use. Table 1. Participant Characteristics Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Open in new tab Table 1. Participant Characteristics Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Mean (SD)/percent Total N = 160 Demographics  Age 13.69 (1.98)  Gender   Male 45.28%   Female 54.72%  Race/ethnicity   Non-Hispanic white 55.63%   Non-Hispanic black 28.13%   Non-Hispanic Asian 1.88%   Hispanic 5.00%   Multiple/Other 9.38% Tobacco use  Ever use   Cigarettes 8.23%   E-cigarettes 5.00%   Both 3.80%  Past-month use   Cigarettes 1.88%   E-cigarettes 2.50%   Both 1.88% Past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising  Convenience store   Never 21.88%   Hardly ever 30.00%   Some of the time 33.75%   Most of the time 14.38%  Print   Never 41.77%   Hardly ever 31.65%   Some of the time 22.78%   Most of the time 3.80%  Billboard   Never 33.54%   Hardly ever 36.08%   Some of the time 23.42%   Most of the time 6.96%  TV   Never 31.88%   Hardly ever 31.88%   Some of the time 31.25%   Most of the time 5.00%  Internet   Never 35.22%   Hardly ever 38.99%   Some of the time 22.64%   Most of the time 3.14% Open in new tab Convenience stores were the most common source of exposure to e-cigarette advertising: over three-quarters (78%) reported some exposure to e-cigarette advertising in stores, and 14% reported seeing e-cigarette ads in convenience stores most of the time. Television was the next most common source of advertising exposure, with over two-thirds (68%) of youth endorsing some exposure; 5% of participants reported seeing e-cigarette ads on television most of the time. Table 2 shows baseline and post-exposure ratings of willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future, by TPW condition. There were no differences in baseline total willingness scores across conditions (p = .36). Controlling for demographic characteristics, ever-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and past-month exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience stores, exposure to the visible TPW was associated with significant increases in willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future (B = 1.15, standard error [SE] = 0.50, p = .02). Effects did not differ by participant age or age category. Table 2. Effect of Tobacco Power Wall Exposure on Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Bolded values are means (SDs) and do not have as associated statistical test. No p-value additional p-values should be listed in this table. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. aANCOVA assessed the effect of power wall condition on pre-post change in total willingness score, and controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, and ever-use of e-cigarettes. Open in new tab Table 2. Effect of Tobacco Power Wall Exposure on Willingness to Use E-cigarettes in the Future Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Power wall hidden Power wall visible Group difference in pre-post change scorea Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Total willingness score 4.16 (4.65) 4.10 (4.44) −0.04 (2.77) 4.03 (4.19) 5.21 (5.24) 1.19 (3.65) .02 Bolded values are means (SDs) and do not have as associated statistical test. No p-value additional p-values should be listed in this table. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. aANCOVA assessed the effect of power wall condition on pre-post change in total willingness score, and controlled for age, race/ethnicity, gender, ever-use of cigarettes, and ever-use of e-cigarettes. Open in new tab Discussion This study is the first to experimentally examine the effect of exposure to a TPW in a retail POS environment on adolescents’ susceptibility to future e-cigarette use. The current study builds upon prior work examining TPW exposure and susceptibility to cigarette smoking to show that exposure to the TPW that primarily displays combustible products can similarly increase youths’ willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Consistent with past research,9,12 retail POS was the most common source of past-month e-cigarette advertising exposure reported by youth. Controlling for demographics, prior tobacco use, and self-reported recent exposure to e-cigarette advertising in convenience store settings, exposure to a visible TPW was associated with increased willingness to use e-cigarettes in the future. Our findings align with recent correlational studies, which suggest that adolescents’ self-reported exposure to advertising at retail POS correlates with increased susceptibility to using e-cigarettes in the future.11,12 These findings have important implications for efforts to mitigate the impact of nicotine and tobacco product advertising at POS on adolescent e-cigarette use. In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act19 gave the FDA authority to regulate how cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are advertised. Further, under the “deeming” rule,20 effective August 2016, FDA assumed the authority to regulate advertising of additional tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA can restrict some forms of POS advertising and provide guidance for states and local communities to regulate advertising at POS. Because POS advertising is the most common channel through which youths are exposed to e-cigarette advertising,9,12 these findings suggest that policies aimed at limiting exposure to e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising at POS help reducing the impact of industry advertising efforts on future nicotine and tobacco product use among adolescents. This study was subject to limitations. First, although similar self-reported measures of susceptibility have been shown to predict adolescents’ future e-cigarette use,15 we did not assess actual ENDS use behavior in this experiment. Further, the TPW display was dominated by cigarette products; it is unclear how different product mixes within the TPW and/or differential placement of e-cigarette advertising in the POS environment may affect youths’ susceptibility to using and perceptions of e-cigarettes. Future research is needed to address these questions, particularly as e-cigarettes gain an increasingly prominent presence in retail environments that have historically been dominated by combustible products. Although the RSL is closely modeled after a real convenience store, it is an artificial environment; this experimental investigation may not be a perfect proxy for effects of POS advertising on adolescent e-cigarette use in the real world. These limitations notwithstanding, our findings suggest the need to consider policies that limit e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising at retail POS settings to mitigate the effects of industry advertising on adolescents’ use of e-cigarettes. Funding This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) (R01CA175209). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Food and Drug Administration. Declaration of Interests None declared. Acknowledgments The authors thank Angela Sicker and Daniela Kusuke for assistance with data collection. References 1. Jamal A , Gentzke A , Hu SS et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students - United States, 2011-2016 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2017 ; 66 ( 23 ): 597 – 603 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2. Johnston LD , O’Malley PM , Miech RA , Bachman JG , Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2015: Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use . Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research ; 2016 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 3. Farsalinos KE , Kistler KA , Gillman G , Voudris V . Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins . Nicotine Tob Res . 2015 ; 17 ( 2 ): 168 – 174 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4. Goniewicz ML , Knysak J , Gawron M et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes . Tob Control . 2014 ; 23 ( 2 ): 133 – 139 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5. Stephens WE . Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e-cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke . Tob Control . 2018 ; 27 : 10 – 17 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 6. Foulds J , Veldheer S , Yingst J et al. Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking E-cigarette users . Nicotine Tob Res . 2015 ; 17 ( 2 ): 186 – 192 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Soneji S , Barrington-Trimis JL , Wills TA et al. Association between initial use of e-Cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis . JAMA Pediatr . 2017 ; 171 ( 8 ): 788 – 797 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8. Kong G , Krishnan-Sarin S . A call to end the epidemic of adolescent E-cigarette use . Drug Alcohol Depend . 2017 ; 174 : 215 – 221 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Singh T , Marynak K , Arrazola RA , Cox S , Rolle IV , King BA . Vital signs: exposure to electronic cigarette advertising among middle school and high school students - United States, 2014 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2016 ; 64 ( 52 ): 1403 – 1408 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10. Singh T , Agaku IT , Arrazola RA et al. Exposure to advertisements and electronic cigarette use among US middle and high school students . Pediatrics . 2016 ; 137 ( 5 ): e20154155 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11. Dai H , Hao J . Exposure to advertisements and susceptibility to electronic cigarette use among youth . J Adolesc Health . 2016 ; 59 ( 6 ): 620 – 626 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12. Mantey DS , Cooper MR , Clendennen SL , Pasch KE , Perry CL . E-Cigarette marketing exposure is associated with e-cigarette use among US youth . J Adolesc Health . 2016 ; 58 ( 6 ): 686 – 690 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13. Day HR , Ambrose BK , Schroeder MJ , Corey CG . Point of sale scanner data for rapid surveillance of the e-cigarette market . Tob Regul Sci . 2017 ; 3 ( 3 ): 325 – 332 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 14. Shadel WG , Martino SC , Setodji CM et al. Hiding the tobacco power wall reduces cigarette smoking risk in adolescents: using an experimental convenience store to assess tobacco regulatory options at retail point-of-sale . Tob Control . 2016 ; 25 : 679 – 684 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 15. Cole AG , Kennedy RD , Chaurasia A , Leatherdale ST . Exploring the predictive validity of the susceptibility to smoking construct for tobacco cigarettes, alternative tobacco products, and e-cigarettes [published online ahead of print December 6, 2017]. Nicotine Tob Res . doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx265 WorldCat 16. Pierce JP , Choi WS , Gilpin EA , Farkas AJ , Merritt RK . Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States . Health Psychol . 1996 ; 15 ( 5 ): 355 – 361 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17. Pepper JK , Ribisl KM , Brewer NT . Adolescents’ interest in trying flavoured e-cigarettes . Tob Control . 2016 ; 25 ( Suppl 2 ): ii62 – ii66 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 18. Pepper JK , Reiter PL , McRee AL , Cameron LD , Gilkey MB , Brewer NT . Adolescent males’ awareness of and willingness to try electronic cigarettes . J Adolesc Health . 2013 ; 52 ( 2 ): 144 – 150 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 . Pub. L. 111–31, 123 Stat 1776 . https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf WorldCat COPAC 20. United States Government, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration . Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products and required warning statements for tobacco products. Final Rule . Fed Regist . 2016 ; 81 ( 90 ): 28973 – 9106 . PubMed WorldCat © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Journal

Nicotine and Tobacco ResearchOxford University Press

Published: Sep 19, 2019

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off