Evaluation of Measurement Tools for Tobacco Product Displays: Is there an App for that?

Todd B. Combs; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Jason Roche; Todd B. Combs; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Jason Roche

doi:10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.810

AIMS Public Health

2015, Volume 2, Issue 4: 810-820. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.810

Previous Article Next Article

Commentary Special Issues

Evaluation of Measurement Tools for Tobacco Product Displays: Is there an App for that?

Center for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Received: 27 July 2015 Accepted: 10 December 2015 Published: 11 December 2015

Tobacco product displays are a pervasive presence in convenience stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, and other retailers nationwide. The influence that tobacco product displays have on purchases and tobacco product initiation, particularly on young people and other vulnerable populations, is well known. An objective measurement tool that is valid, reliable, and feasible to use is needed to assess product displays in the retail setting. This study reports on the relative accuracy of various tools that measure area and/or distance in photos and thus could be applied to product displays. We compare results of repeated trials using five tools. Three tools are smartphone apps that measure objects in photos taken on the device; these are narrowed down from a list of 284 candidate apps. Another tool uses photos taken with any device and calculates relative area via a built-in function in the Microsoft Office Suite. The fifth uses photos taken with the Narrative Clip, a “life-logging” wearable camera. To evaluate validity and reliability, we assess each instrument's measurements and calculate intra-class correlation coefficients. Mean differences between observed measurements (via tape measure) and those from the five tools range from just over one square foot to just over two square feet. Most instruments produce reliable estimates though some are sensitive to the size of the display. Results of this study indicate need for future research to test innovative measurement tools. This paper also solicits further discussion on how best to transform anecdotal knowledge of product displays as targeted and disproportionate marketing tactics into a scientific evidence base for public policy change.
- tobacco product display,
- point-of-sale policy,
- tobacco control,
- retail setting,
- measurement
Citation: Todd B. Combs, Sarah Moreland-Russell, Jason Roche. Evaluation of Measurement Tools for Tobacco Product Displays: Is there an App for that?[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 810-820. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.810

Related Papers:

Abstract

Tobacco product displays are a pervasive presence in convenience stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, and other retailers nationwide. The influence that tobacco product displays have on purchases and tobacco product initiation, particularly on young people and other vulnerable populations, is well known. An objective measurement tool that is valid, reliable, and feasible to use is needed to assess product displays in the retail setting. This study reports on the relative accuracy of various tools that measure area and/or distance in photos and thus could be applied to product displays. We compare results of repeated trials using five tools. Three tools are smartphone apps that measure objects in photos taken on the device; these are narrowed down from a list of 284 candidate apps. Another tool uses photos taken with any device and calculates relative area via a built-in function in the Microsoft Office Suite. The fifth uses photos taken with the Narrative Clip, a “life-logging” wearable camera. To evaluate validity and reliability, we assess each instrument's measurements and calculate intra-class correlation coefficients. Mean differences between observed measurements (via tape measure) and those from the five tools range from just over one square foot to just over two square feet. Most instruments produce reliable estimates though some are sensitive to the size of the display. Results of this study indicate need for future research to test innovative measurement tools. This paper also solicits further discussion on how best to transform anecdotal knowledge of product displays as targeted and disproportionate marketing tactics into a scientific evidence base for public policy change.

References

[1]	Federal Trade Commission (2013) Cigarette Report for 2011. Federal Trade Commission.
[2]	Ress D (2013) Altria Restructuring Marketing Efforts.
[3]	Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (2011) Restricting Tobacco Advertising: Tips and Tools.
[4]	Center for Public Health Systems Science (2014) Point-of-Sale: A Tobacco Control Guide. St. Louis: Center for Public Health Systems Science, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis.
[5]	Berman M, Miura M, Bergstresser J (2012) Tobacco Product Display Restrictions. Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy.
[6]	Barbeau EM, Wolin KY, Naumova EN, et al. (2005) Tobacco advertising in communities: associations with race and class. Prev Med 40: 16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.056
[7]	Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (2012) Deadly Alliance: How Big Tobacco and Convenience Stores Partner to Market Tobacco Products and Fight Life-Saving Policies.
[8]	Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Feighery EC, et al. (2010) A longitudinal study of exposure to retail cigarette advertising and smoking initiation. Pediatrics 126: 232-238. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3021
[9]	Hyland A, Travers MJ, Cummings KM, et al. (2003) Tobacco outlet density and demographics in Erie County, New York. Am J Public Health 93: 1075-1076. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1075
[10]	Seidenberg AB, Caughey RW, Rees VW, et al. (2010) Storefront cigarette advertising differs by community demographic profile. Am J Health Promot 24: e26-31. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.090618-QUAN-196
[11]	Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S, et al. (2006) An experimental study of effects on schoolchildren of exposure to point-of-sale cigarette advertising and pack displays. Health Educ Res 21: 338-347. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl005
[12]	Woodruff SI, Agro AD, Wildey MB, et al. (1995) Point-of-Purchase Tobacco Advertising - Prevalence, Correlates, and Brief Intervention. Health Values 19: 56-62.
[13]	Chuang YC Cubbin C Ahn D Winkleby MA (2005) Effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking. J Epidemiology Community Health 59: 568-573. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.029041
[14]	Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, et al. (2008) Is adolescent smoking related to the density and proximity of tobacco outlets and retail cigarette advertising near schools? Prev Med 47: 210-214. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.04.008
[15]	Loomis BR, Kim AE, Goetz JL, et al. (2013) Density of tobacco retailers and its association with sociodemographic characteristics of communities across New York. Public Health 127: 333-338. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.013
[16]	Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, et al. (2004) Reaching youth at the point of sale: cigarette marketing is more prevalent in stores where adolescents shop frequently. Tob Control 13: 315-318. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.006577
[17]	Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath YM, Chaloupka FJ, et al. (2002) Tobacco industry marketing at point of purchase after the 1998 MSA billboard advertising ban. Am J Public Health 92: 937-940. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.6.937
[18]	Spanopoulos D, Ratschen E, McNeill A, et al. (2012) Retail price and point of sale display of tobacco in the UK: a descriptive study of small retailers. PLoS One 7: e29871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029871
[19]	Lee JG, Henriksen L, Myers AE, et al. (2014) A systematic review of store audit methods for assessing tobacco marketing and products at the point of sale. Tob Control 23: 98-106. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050807
[20]	Haffey F, Brady RR, Maxwell S (2013) A comparison of the reliability of smartphone apps for opioid conversion. Drug Saf 36: 111-117. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0015-0
[21]	Kardous CA, Shaw PB (2014) Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications. J Acoust Soc Am 135: EL186-192. doi: 10.1121/1.4865269
[22]	Abroms LC, Lee Westmaas J, Bontemps-Jones J, et al. (2013) A content analysis of popular smartphone apps for smoking cessation. Am J Prev Med 45: 732-736. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.07.008
[23]	Narrative (2015) Narrative Clip 2.
[24]	Pew Research Center (2014) Cell Phone and Smartphone Ownership Demographics.
[25]	comScore (2014) comScore Reports July 2014 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.
[26]	Hardy GH, Littlewood JE, Polya G (1999) Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 43-44.

Reader Comments

your name:*

Email:*
© 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)