Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Supply and demand effects between tobacco retailer density and smoking prevalence
  1. Shelley D Golden1,2,
  2. Tzy-Mey Kuo2,
  3. Todd Combs3,
  4. Amanda Y Kong4,
  5. Kurt M Ribisl1,2,
  6. Chris D Baggett2,5
  1. 1Health Behavior, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3Center for Public Health Systems Science, Brown School, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  4. 4Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  5. 5Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Shelley D Golden, Health Behavior, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; sgolden{at}email.unc.edu

Abstract

Objective Places with more tobacco retailers have higher smoking prevalence levels, but whether this is because retailers locate where people who smoke live or whether tobacco availability prompts tobacco use is unknown. In this study, we compare the role of consumer demand with that of tobacco supply in longitudinal, area-based associations of tobacco retailer density with smoking prevalence.

Methods We merged annual adult smoking prevalence estimates derived from the USA Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System data with annual county estimates of tobacco retailer density calculated from the National Establishment Time Series data for 3080 counties between 2000 and 2010. We analysed relationships between retailer density and smoking in 3080 counties, using random intercept cross-lagged panel models and employing two measures of tobacco retailer density capturing the number of likely tobacco retailers in a county divided by either the population or land area.

Results Both density models provided evidence of significant demand and supply effects; in the population-based model, the association of smoking prevalence in 1 year with tobacco retailer density in the next year (standardised coefficient=0.038, p<0.01) was about double the association between tobacco retailer density with subsequent smoking prevalence (0.017, p<0.01). The reverse was true in the land area-based model, where the supply effect (0.042, p<0.01) was more than 10 times stronger than the demand effect (0.003, p<0.01).

Conclusions Policies that restrict access to retail tobacco have the potential to reduce smoking prevalence, but pairing such policies with interventions to reduce consumer demand remains important.

  • Environment
  • Public policy
  • Tobacco industry

Data availability statement

No data are available.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

No data are available.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @AmandaYKong

  • Contributors SDG developed the study idea, oversaw the design and analysis, drafted the manuscript, and serves as the guarantor. T-MK cleaned and managed all data and conducted all analyses. TC, AYK and CB assisted with data compilation, reviewed and recommended study design options, reviewed and interpreted results, and edited the manuscript. KMR reviewed study design, results and the final manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the NCI-funded ASPiRE Centre (P01CA225597). AYK also received support funded from NCI (P30CA225520) and the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (STCST00400_FY24).

  • Competing interests AYK and KMR serve as paid expert consultants in litigation against the tobacco industry. KMR holds a royalty interest in tobacco retailer mapping system owned and licensed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The software was not used in this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.