Visibility of point-of-sale displays for e-cigarettes and smoking paraphernalia, by deprivation level: England, November 2019 to February 2020 (N=132*).
| Total visibility score for e-cigarettes | ||||
| Unadjusted mean (SD) | Estimated MD (95% CI)† | P value† | ||
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 14.84 (1.80) | – | – | |
| Medium (n=63) | 14.75 (1.74) | −0.021 (−0.695 to 0.653) | 0.951 | |
| High (n=25) | 14.48 (1.83) | −0.150 (−1.045 to 0.745) | 0.741 | |
| Total visibility score for smoking paraphernalia | ||||
| Unadjusted mean (SD) | Estimated MD (95% CI)† | P value† | ||
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 12.61 (1.88) | – | – | |
| Medium (n=63) | 12.54 (1.86) | −0.007 (−0.711 to 0.696) | 0.983 | |
| High (n=25) | 13.08 (1.68) | 0.670 (−0.265 to 1.605) | 0.159 | |
| Number of display units for e-cigarettes | ||||
| 1, % (N) | >1, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 48 (21) | 52 (23) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 49 (31) | 51 (32) | 0.87 (0.39 to 1.93) | 0.735 |
| High (n=25) | 44 (11) | 56 (14) | 0.79 (0.27 to 2.27) | 0.659 |
| Number of display units for smoking paraphernalia | ||||
| 1, % (N) | >1, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 84 (37) | 16 (7) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 89 (56) | 11 (7) | 0.64 (0.20 to 2.07) | 0.643 |
| High (n=25) | 92 (23) | 8 (2) | 0.35 (0.06 to 2.02) | 0.352 |
| Presence of signage for e-cigarettes | ||||
| Absent, % (N) | Present, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 41 (18) | 59 (26) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 37 (23) | 64 (40) | 1.22 (0.55 to 2.71) | 0.628 |
| High (n=25) | 36 (9) | 64 (16) | 1.38 (0.47 to 4.02) | 0.555 |
| Presence of signage for smoking paraphernalia | ||||
| Absent, % (N) | Present, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 91 (40) | 9 (4) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 98 (62) | 2 (1) | 0.15 (0.02 to 1.43) | 0.100 |
| High (n=25) | 92 (23) | 8 (2) | 0.83 (0.13 to 5.46) | 0.846 |
| Presence of visible pricing for e-cigarettes | ||||
| Absent, % (N) | Present, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 36 (16) | 64 (28) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 32 (20) | 69 (43) | 0.68 (0.15 to 3.16) | 0.622 |
| High (n=25) | 16 (4) | 84 (21) | 0.42 (0.06 to 3.07) | 0.392 |
| Presence of visible pricing for smoking paraphernalia | ||||
| Absent, % (N) | Present, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 59 (26) | 41 (18) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 56 (35) | 44 (28) | 1.07 (0.32 to 3.58) | 0.909 |
| High (n=25) | 48 (12) | 52 (13) | 1.42 (0.34 to 5.86) | 0.632 |
| Relative size of the display unit for e-cigarettes‡ | ||||
| <Tobacco, % (N) | ≥Tobacco, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 71 (31) | 30 (13) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 84 (53) | 16 (10) | 0.33 (0.12 to 0.92) | 0.034 |
| High (n=25) | 68 (17) | 32 (8) | 0.53 (0.16 to 1.74) | 0.298 |
| Relative size of the display unit for smoking paraphernalia‡ | ||||
| <Tobacco, % (N) | ≥Tobacco, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 98 (43) | 2 (1) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 97 (61) | 3 (2) | 1.12 (0.90 to 13.44) | 0.927 |
| High (n=25) | 88 (22) | 12 (3) | 2.84 (0.26 to 31.00) | 0.391 |
| Presence of promotional material for e-cigarettes | ||||
| Absent, % (N) | Present, % (N) | Estimated OR (95% CI)† | P value† | |
| Deprivation level | ||||
| Low (n=44) | 59 (26) | 41 (18) | – | – |
| Medium (n=63) | 49 (31) | 51 (32) | 1.39 (0.52 to 3.67) | 0.512 |
| High (n=25) | 20 (5) | 80 (20) | 2.71 (0.71 to 10.29) | 0.143 |
Deprivation level of lower super output area (LSOA) was from the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) deciles19: (1) low (8–10); (2) medium (4–7); and (3) high (1–3). It was assumed that the variance between deprivation levels would be 25% of the residual variance, equivalent to assuming a minimum effect size of d=0.5. It was estimated that at least nine stores would be required in each group to have 90% power to detect an effect size of this magnitude or greater when comparing the visibility of POS displays between deprivation levels after adjusting for store type.
*132 rather than 133 because one small-format supermarket in Bristol had missing IMD data.
†Models were adjusted for store location (Bristol or Cambridge) and store type (convenience store or supermarket).
‡Compared with the tobacco storage unit: <, smaller than the tobacco storage unit (or separate); or ≥, the same size or larger than the tobacco storage unit.
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation; MD, mean difference; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation.