Inaugural Research Seminar

1. Inaugural Research Seminar Point of sale displays and beyond: The next steps for tobacco control in retail settings

2. Point of sale – new evidence and evaluation

3. New studies • Paynter et al, 2009. Cross-sectional study assessing association between visiting stores with PoS displays and noticing PoS displays, and smoking behaviours (NZ) [Tob Cont 2009; 18: 268-274] • Carter et al, 2009. Intercept study of purchasers of cigarettes in stores with PoS displays. Investigation of prevalence of impulse purchasing and impact of PoS displays. (Perth, WA) [Tob Cont 2009; 18: 218-221] • Burton et al, 2011. (NSW, Aus) Diary study among smokers to assess if viewing PoS displays resulted in greater purchase and smoking. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03584.x/abstract • Hoek et al, 2010. Qualitative study exploring perceptions of PoS displays among smokers and recent quitters. (NZ) [Tob Cont 2010; 19: 334-337] • Hoek and Vaudrey, 2010. Exploration of retailers’ experience with removing PoS displays in NZ. • Germain et al, 2009. Prospective study of adult smokers and influence of PoS exposure on quitting. (Vic , Aus) [Addiction 2009; 105: 159-163] • Henriksen et al, 2010. Prospective study assessing association between visiting stores/noticing in-store tobacco promotions and smoking behaviours (US, California) [Pediatrics 2010; 126: 232-238] • Quinn et al, McNeill et al 2011. Two studies investigating economic impact and short term effects on adults and children of Irish PoS ban in 2009. (Ireland) [Tob Cont 2010; 20:137-143 & 151-155]

4. Henriksen et al, 2010 What does this study add? • Prospective nature (30 mnth FU of 1356 never smokers) • Setting where PoS = dominant form of advertising • Shopping frequency and cig brand impressions per week (in store) associated with increased odds of ever smoking at 12 and 30 month FU, with evidence of dose response. Inconsistent results for self-reported exposure to cig ads in stores • Controlled for many potential confounders • But evidence from setting where PoS displays + in-store ads and promotions Henriksen,L. et al. Pediatrics 2010; 126: 232-8

5. Germain et al, 2009 What does this study add? • Prospective nature (18 mnth FU of 222 smokers) • Setting where PoS = dominant form of advertising • High PoS sensitivity (composite of 3 measures) associated with greatly reduced odds of quitting at 18 month FU (0.27 95%CI 0.08 to 0.91). • Controlled for age, gender, SES, cigs smoked • But small nos, those most sensitive to PoS may be least likely to quit due to other factors (e.g. lower motivation to quit, less supportive environment/ friends, greater level of addiction) Germain, D. et al. Addiction 2010;105: 159-63

6. Evaluation of PoS display bans McNeill et al. Irish PoS display ban July 2009 • Retailer compliance 97% • Reductions in test purchase sales 2007 (48%) ->2009 (32%) • Support for PoS ban increased from 58% pre- to 66% post-ban • No immediate change in adult smoking prevalence • Cohort study of 180 teenagers (13-15 yrs) June and Aug 2009: • PoS recall reduced from 80% to 22% (p<0.001) • 32% -> 25% (p=0.10) proportion believing they could buy cigs • 62% -> 45% (p<0.001) proportion believing >20% of peers smoke • No stat sig change in current smoking prevalence • Economic evaluation • No evidence of stat sig effect of PoS ban on cigarette sales in 12 months after ban after adjusting for temporal trend and seasonal effects TobCont 2010; 20:137-143 & 151-155

7. Evaluation in New Zealand • Imperative to carry out thorough evaluation • Dearth of evidence (used by opponents) • Good practice • Evaluation should be: • Planned • Informed by theory and data • Multi-faceted (methods, populations, settings) and rigorous • Adequately resourced Thank You