Tobacco Point-of-Purchase marketing in school neighbourhoods and school smoking prevalence: a descriptive study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Point of Purchase (PoP) promotional and advertising activities are a sophisticated tobacco marketing strategy. This study describes tobacco PoP activities in school neighbourhoods and compares PoP activities in retail stores between schools with high and low smoking prevalence. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 81 randomly selected schools across five provinces. Students in grades 10-11 completed a questionnaire on smoking. Observations were made in all retail stores located within a one-kilometre radius around the school. ANOVA tests were used to detect differences on PoP variables between high (> 20.6%) and low (< or = 20.6%) smoking prevalence schools, defined as percentage of students reporting at least a few puffs on > 2 days in the last 30 days. RESULTS: Approximately half of retail stores in each school neighbourhood exhibited tobacco PoP activities. Average school smoking prevalence was 20.99%. There were significant main effects on PoP variables between schools with high and low smoking prevalence, Wilk's lambda = 0.81, F (6,74) = 2.89, p < 0.01, eta2 = 0.19. Stores near schools with high smoking prevalence had significantly lower prices per cigarette (F (1,79) = 15.34, p < 0.01, eta2 = 0.16), more in-store promotions (F (1,79) = 6.73, p < 0.01, eta2 = 0.08), and fewer government-sponsored health warnings (F (1,79) = 6.26, p < 0.01, eta2 = 0.07) compared to schools with low smoking prevalence. CONCLUSION: Higher levels of PoP activities in stores located in the school neighbourhood are related to school smoking prevalence. Schools with low smoking prevalence had more stores that posted government health warning signs and higher cigarette prices. Legislation regulating PoP activities and health warnings in school neighbourhoods should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".