ENDS retailers and marketing near university campuses with and without tobacco-free policies
More details
Hide details
Public Health Institute, Oakland, United States
Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
Publish date: 2018-10-08
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(October):47
This study characterizes the retail environment for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) near public universities in California, assesses marketing in the first random sample of ENDS retailers, and compares ENDS retailer density and retail marketing near campuses with and without tobacco-free policies.

Two data sources were used to construct a sampling frame of possible ENDS retailers, which were mapped within 1–4 miles of 33 campuses of the University of California and the California State University systems. To assess retailer density, a telephone survey of possible ENDS retailers (n=1186) determined who sold e-cigarettes or e-liquids (completion rate=72.9%). To assess retail marketing, trained data collectors completed observations in a random sample (n=438, mean M=13.3 stores per campus, SD=11.2) in the Fall of 2015.

In a telephone survey, 59.1% of retailers reported selling e-cigarettes or e-liquids. Half of the campuses had 10 or more ENDS retailers nearby. Most ENDS retailers were convenience stores (42.5%), and more were head shops (8.4%) than smoke shops (6.8%) or vape shops (6.2%). Nearly half (43.6%) of ENDS retailers sold products marketed as zero-nicotine and 13.9% sold NRT. ENDS advertising was visible in 72.4% and on the exterior of 28.1% of retailers. However, the presence of exterior advertising for ENDS was significantly lower near campuses with established tobacco-free policies than near campuses with recent or no tobacco-free policies (OR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.94).

The large number of tobacco retailers that sell ENDS near colleges suggests a need for better monitoring and regulation of ENDS availability and marketing. The widespread availability of zero-nicotine products suggests a need to examine whether nicotine-free products are as advertised and safe to use. Longitudinal research is needed to understand how retail marketing for ENDS responds to change in tobacco-free policies at nearby campuses.

Lisa Henriksen   
Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette use among youth and young adults. A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2016. https://e-cigarettes.surgeonge.... Accessed June 19, 2017.
2. Kasza KA, Ambrose BK, Conway KP, et al. Tobacco-product use by adults and youths in the United States in 2013 and 2014. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):342-353. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1607538
3. Sutfin EL, McCoy TP, Morrell HER, Hoeppner BB, Wolfson M. Electronic cigarette use by college students. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(3):214-221. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.05.001
4. Sutfin EL, Reboussin BA, Debinski B, Wagoner KG, Spangler J, Wolfson M. The impact of trying electronic cigarettes on cigarette smoking by college students: a prospective analysis. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):e83-e89. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302707
5. Johnston L, O’Malley P, Miech R, Bachman J, Schulenberg J. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2015: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. http://www.monitoringthefuture.... Published 2016. Accessed August 4, 2016.
6. Loukas A, Marti CN, Cooper M, Pasch KE, Perry CL. Exclusive e-cigarette use predicts cigarette initiation among college students. Addict Behav. 2018;76:343-347. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.08.023
7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018. doi:10.17226/24952
8. Primack BA, Soneji S, Stoolmiller M, Fine MJ, Sargent JD. Progression to traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among US adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(11):1018-1023. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1742
9. Barrington-Trimis JL, Samet JM, McConnell R. Flavorings in electronic cigarettes: an unrecognized respiratory health hazard? JAMA. 2014;312(23):2493-2494. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14830
10. Sleiman M, Logue JM, Montesinos VN, et al. Emissions from electronic cigarettes: key parameters affecting the release of harmful chemicals. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(17):9644-9651. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01741
11. Rudy SF, Durmowicz EL. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: overheating, fires and explosions. Tob Control. 2017;26:10-18. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052626
12. Martino SC, Scharf DM, Setodji CM, Shadel WG. Measuring exposure to protobacco marketing and media: a field study using ecological momentary assessment. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(4):398-406. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr223
13. Giovenco DP, Casseus M, Duncan DT, Coups EJ, Lewis MJ, Delnevo CD. Association between electronic cigarette marketing near schools and e-cigarette use among youth. J Adolesc Health. 2016;59(6):627-634. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.007
14. Pérez A, Chien L-C, Harrell MB, Pasch KE, Obinwa UC, Perry CL. Geospatial associations between tobacco retail outlets and current use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes among youths in Texas. J Biom Biostat. 2017;8(5). doi:10.4172/2155-6180.1000375
15. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.003
16. Wagoner KG, Song EY, Egan KL, et al. E-cigarette availability and promotion among retail outlets near college campuses in two southeastern states. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(8):1150-1155. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu081
17. Wagoner KG, Song EY, King JL, et al. Availability and promotion of electronic nicotine delivery systems at the point-of-sale. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(8):1020-1024. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx207
18. Dai H, Hao J. Geographic density and proximity of vape shops to colleges in the USA. Tob Control. 2017;26(4):379-385. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052957
19. Rose SW, Barker DC, D’Angelo H, et al. The availability of electronic cigarettes in US retail outlets, 2012: results of two national studies. Tob Control. 2014;23:10-16. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051461
20. Kim AE, Loomis B, Rhodes B, Eggers ME, Liedtke C, Porter L. Identifying e-cigarette vape stores: description of an online search methodology. Tob Control. 2016;25(e1):e19-23. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052270
21. California Schools Map. http://www.californiaschoolcam.... Accessed July 28, 2017.
22. Kates FR, Salloum RG, Thrasher JF, Islam F, Fleischer NL, Maziak W. Geographic proximity of waterpipe smoking establishments to colleges in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(1):e9-e14. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.006
23. Henriksen L, Andersen-Rodgers E, Zhang X, et al. Neighborhood variation in the price of cheap tobacco products in California: results from healthy stores for a healthy community. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(11):1330-1337. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx089
24. Nayak P, Barker DC, Huang J, Kemp CB, Wagoner TL, Chaloupka FC. ‘No, the government doesn’t need to, it’s already self-regulated’: a qualitative study among vape shop operators on perceptions of electronic vapor product regulation. Health Educ Res. 2018;33(2):114-124. doi:10.1093/her/cyy003
25. California Youth Advocacy Network (CYAN). California Public College & University Smoke/Tobacco-Free Policy Report Card. Published 2016. Accessed July 28, 2016.
26. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Accessed July 28, 2017.
27. Barrington-Trimis JL, Gibson LA, Halpern-Felsher B, et al. Type of e-cigarette device used among adolescents and young adults: Findings from a pooled analysis of 8 studies of 2,166 vapers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;20(2):271-274. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx069
28. Kirchner TR, Cantrell J, Anesetti-Rothermel A, Ganz O, Vallone DM, Abrams DB. Geospatial exposure to point-of-sale tobacco: real-time craving and smoking-cessation outcomes. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(4):379-385. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.05.016
29. Siahpush M, Shaikh RA, Hyland A, et al. Point-of-sale cigarette marketing, urge to buy cigarettes, and impulse purchases of cigarettes: results from a population-based survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1357-1362. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv181
30. Goniewicz ML, Gupta R, Lee YH, et al. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarette refill solutions: A comparative analysis of products from the US, Korea, and Poland. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(6): 583-588. doi:10.1016/jdrugp.2015.01.020
31. Public Health Law Center. E-Cigarette Regulations - California. http://www.publichealthlawcent.... Accessed August 16, 2018.
32. Saddleson ML, Kozlowski LT, Giovino GA, et al. Enjoyment and other reasons for electronic cigarette use: Results from college students in New York. Addict Behav. 2016;54:33-39. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.012
33. Schleicher NC, Johnson TO, Dauphinee AL, Henriksen L. Tobacco marketing in California’s retail environment (2008-2011). Stanford, CA: Stanford Prevention Research Center; 2013. Accessed June 6, 2018.
34. Bennett BL, Deiner M, Pokhrel P. College anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior: a review of the literature. Tob Induc Dis. 2017;15:11. doi:10.1186/s12971-017-0117-z
35. Colleges and Universities - Accessed August 9, 2017.
36. Wagoner KG, Sutfin EL, Song EY, et al. Trends in point-of-sale tobacco marketing around college campuses: Opportunities for enhanced tobacco control efforts. J Am Coll Health. 2018;66(3):145-154. doi:10.1080/07448481.2017.1389734