IntroductionOn 3 January, 2013, the city of Providence, Rhode Island, began enforcing a restriction on the retail sale of all non-cigarette tobacco products with a characterising flavour other than tobacco, menthol, mint or wintergreen. We assessed the policy impact on cigar sales—which comprise 95% of flavoured non-cigarette tobacco products sold through conventional tobacco retail outlets (eg, convenience stores, supermarkets) in Providence—over time and in comparison to the rest of the state (ROS).MethodsWeekly retail scanner sales data were obtained for January 2012 to December 2016. Cigar sales were categorised into products labelled with explicit-flavour (eg, Cherry) or concept-flavour (eg, Jazz) names. Regression models assessed changes in prepolicy and postpolicy sales in Providence and ROS.ResultsAverage weekly unit sales of flavoured cigars decreased prepolicy to postpolicy by 51% in Providence, while sales increased by 10% in ROS (both p<0.01). The Providence results are due to a 93% reduction in sales of cigars labelled with explicit-flavour names (p<0.01), which did not change significantly in ROS. Sales of cigars labelled with concept-flavour names increased by 74% in Providence and 119% in ROS (both p<0.01). Sales of all cigars—flavoured and otherwise—decreased by 31% in Providence (p<0.01). We detected some evidence of product substitution and cross-border purchasing.ConclusionsThe Providence policy had a city-specific impact on retail sales of flavoured cigars, which was attenuated by an increase in sales of concept flavour-named cigars. Products with concept-flavour names may avoid enforcement agency detection, and their continued sale undermines the intent of the policy.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a thematic network dedicated to accelerating the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities by advancing dissemination and implementation science. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, CPCRN has operated at two levels: Each participating Network Center conducts research projects with primarily local partners as well as multicenter collaborative research projects with state and national partners. Through multicenter collaboration, thematic networks leverage the expertise, resources, and partnerships of participating centers to conduct research projects collectively that might not be feasible individually. Although multicenter collaboration often is advocated, it is challenging to promote and assess. Using bibliometric network analysis and other graphical methods, this paper describes CPCRN’s multicenter publication progression from 2004 to 2014. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in 2014 identified 249 peer-reviewed CPCRN publications involving two or more centers out of 6,534 total. The research and public health impact of these multicenter collaborative projects initiated by CPCRN during that 10-year period were then examined. CPCRN established numerous workgroups around topics such as: 2-1-1, training and technical assistance, colorectal cancer control, federally qualified health centers, cancer survivorship, and human papillomavirus. The paper discusses the challenges that arise in promoting multicenter collaboration and the strategies that CPCRN uses to address those challenges. The lessons learned should broadly interest those seeking to promote multisite collaboration to address public health problems, such as cancer prevention and control.

Tobacco control evaluation relies on surveillance documenting attitudes and behaviors. Practitioners and evaluators seek the most efficient, high-quality surveillance methodology. This paper explores the feasibility of mail and online survey data collection protocols using address-based sampling (ABS) to complement landline and cell phone surveys as part of a comprehensive tobacco control program evaluation. We used a comparative study of response rates, costs, and key outcomes across phone, mail, and online survey protocols. In 2015, we supplemented the phone-administered NY Adult Tobacco Survey with an ABS for paper and online data collection. For each survey protocol, we calculated response rates; compared unweighted demographic characteristics; and compared weighted outcome data for smoking prevalence, quit attempts, and tobacco control policy support. We assessed relative cost-per-complete per protocol. Response rates were highest for paper surveys (38.9%), followed by online (28.6%), landline (22.2%), and cell phone (14.7%) surveys. Respondent demographics differed across protocols; landline, mail, and online respondents were more likely than cell phone respondents to be older, female, white, and higher educated. Smoking prevalence varied by protocol, but quit attempts and tobacco control policy support were similar across protocols. Cost-per-complete estimates were lowest for paper surveys. Programs rely on efficient and representative methodologies, and paper and online surveys with ABS show promise for supplementing phone surveillance to improve response rates and lower costs per completed survey.

This study examined e-cigarette use and attitudes toward e-cigarette policies among students at colleges and universities with and without policies prohibiting e-cigarette use on campus. In April 2015, we fielded an online survey with a convenience sample of 930 students at 14 North Dakota colleges and universities. The survey included questions about e-cigarette use, observed e-cigarette use on campus, awareness of school e-cigarette policy, and support for policies prohibiting e-cigarette use on campus. Over 40 % of respondents had used e-cigarettes at least once, and most current users reported using them rarely (36 %). Nearly 29 % of respondents reported observing e-cigarette use on campus, and more than half of these reported seeing e-cigarette use indoors. More than 42 % did not know whether their school's policy prohibited e-cigarette use on campus, and students at schools with a policy were more likely to identify their campus policy correctly. Sixty-six percent of respondents were in favor of policies prohibiting e-cigarette use on campus, and those at schools with policies prohibiting e-cigarette use were more likely to support a campus e-cigarette policy. Policies prohibiting e-cigarette use on campus intend to restrict use, reduce prevalence, and shape social norms. This study indicates that support for campus e-cigarette policies is high, although awareness of whether e-cigarettes are included in college and university policies is low. These findings demonstrate the need for coordinated policy education efforts and may guide college administrators and student health services personnel as they consider how to implement and evaluate campus e-cigarette policies.

No abstract