Search

Introduction: The present study empirically examined the association between price discounts and product attributes of e-liquids sold by online retailers., Methods: We analysed 14 000 e-liquid products from five major online e-cigarette retailers between April and May 2021 to determine the association between price discounts and product attributes such as nicotine level and form, flavour and vegetable glycerine/propylene glycol ratio. A fixed-effects model was used in the analysis and discounts were calculated in US cents/mL of e-liquid volume., Results: Out of 14 407 e-liquid products, 92.5% were offered at a discounted price. On average, the price discount for the 13 324 products that had discounts was 16.84 cents/mL across the five stores. Among the three forms of nicotine (salt, freebase and nicotine free), salt e-liquids had the highest average price discount., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that e-liquids with salt nicotine have a higher average price discount when sold online, which may influence consumer purchasing behaviour. Further research is needed to assess the potential impact of these discounts on youth and adult tobacco use. Policymakers may consider implementing measures to limit online price discounts for e-liquids as a means of reducing sales among young people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Understanding the impact of prices for tobacco and nicotine products is critical for creating policies to prevent use among young people. This study examines the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and cigarette prices on current e-cigarette and cigarette use among youth and young adults., Methods: Data were from a national probability-based sample aged 15-21 collected in 2014 and followed every 6 months for 2.5 years through 2016. We conducted separate conditional likelihood logistic regression models with past 30-day e-cigarette use and past 30-day cigarette use outcomes on the sample of individuals who participated in at least two survey waves (n=11 578) with linked Nielsen market-level price data for rechargeable e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Models controlled for time-varying variables at the individual and state policy levels, and fixed effects at the individual, wave and market levels., Results: Higher cigarette prices were associated with increased past 30-day e-cigarette use, indicating e-cigarettes may serve as a substitute for cigarettes. We did not find a statistically significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day e-cigarette use; neither did we find a significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day cigarette smoking., Conclusion: This is the first study to examine e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette behaviour longitudinally among young people. Findings suggest the need for better measuring the costs associated with e-cigarette use among this population, as well as a careful assessment of price and tax policies that takes into account cross-product impact to sufficiently discourage e-cigarette and cigarette use among young people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Prior to the final deeming rule, federal law in the USA prohibited electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) from being marketed as smoking cessation products; for other therapeutic purposes and in ways that conveyed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval/endorsement. After August 2016, additional federal prohibitions were added including false/misleading and unauthorised modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. No systematic investigation of e-cigarette health claims has been conducted in the retail environment. We sought to document and characterise claims made in vape shops., Methods: Between November 2015 and February 2016, before final deeming rule implementation, two trained data collectors conducted unannounced observational assessments of 46 vape shops in North Carolina. Data collectors used wearable imaging technology to document health claims about e-cigarettes. Photos were coded for five claim types: (1) cessation device; (2) drug effect/device; (3) FDA-approved/endorsed; (4) false/misleading and (5) MRTP. Photos were double coded; differences between coders were adjudicated and reviewed by an expert panel., Results: At least one health claim was displayed in 41.3% (n=19) of retailers, ranging from 0 to 27 claims per retailer. All claim types were found. Cessation device claims were the most prevalent (62.2%, n=84), followed by MRTP (27.4%, n=37), drug effect/device (8.1%, n=11), false/misleading (1.5%, n=2), and FDA approved/endorsed (0.7%, n=1). Retail chains made the majority of claims compared with independent shops (88.9% vs 11.1%)., Conclusions: Many vape shops displayed e-cigarette health claims, which are all now FDA prohibited. These claims could mislead consumers and influence behaviour. Findings highlight the need for retailer education, continued surveillance, enforcement specific to advertising and research on consumer perceptions of claims., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: While national surveys showed declines in e-cigarette use in the USA between 2015 and 2016, recent reports indicate that JUUL, a sleekly designed e-cigarette that looks like a USB drive, is increasingly being used by youth and young adults. However, the extent of JUUL's growth and its marketing strategy have not been systematically examined., Methods: A variety of data sources were used to examine JUUL retail sales in the USA and its marketing and promotion. Retail store scanner data were used to capture the retail sales of JUUL and other major e-cigarette brands for the period 2011-2017. A list of JUUL-related keywords was used to identify JUUL-related tweets on Twitter; to identify JUUL-related posts, hashtags and accounts on Instagram and to identify JUUL-related videos on YouTube., Results: In the short 3-year period 2015-2017, JUUL has transformed from a little-known brand with minimum sales into the largest retail e-cigarette brand in the USA, lifting sales of the entire e-cigarette category. Its US$150 million retail sales in the last quarter of 2017 accounted for about 40% of e-cigarette retail market share. While marketing expenditures for JUUL were moderate, the sales growth of JUUL was accompanied by a variety of innovative, engaging and wide-reaching campaigns on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, conducted by JUUL and its affiliated marketers., Conclusions: The discrepancies between e-cigarette sales data and the prevalence of e-cigarette use from surveys highlight the challenges in tracking and understanding the use of new and emerging tobacco products. In a rapidly changing media environment, where successful and influential marketing campaigns can be conducted on social media at little cost, marketing expenditures alone may not fully capture the influence, reach and engagement of tobacco marketing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Retailers that primarily or exclusively sell electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or vaping products represent a new category of tobacco retailer. We sought to identify (a) how vape shops can be identified and (b) sales and marketing practices of vape shops., Data Sources: A medical librarian iteratively developed a search strategy and in February 2017 searched seven academic databases (ABI/INFORM Complete, ECONLit, Embase, Entrepreneurship, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus). We hand searched Tobacco Regulatory Science and Tobacco Prevention & Cessation ., Study Selection: We used dual, independent screening. Records were eligible if published in 2010 or later, were peer-reviewed journal articles and focused on vape shops., Data Extraction: We used dual, independent data abstraction and assessed risk of bias. Of the 3605 records identified, 22 were included., Data Synthesis: We conducted a narrative systematic review. Researchers relied heavily on Yelp to identify vape shops. Vape shop owners use innovative marketing strategies that sometimes diverge from those of traditional tobacco retailers. Vape shop staff believe strongly that their products are effective harm-reduction products. Vape shops were more common in areas with more White residents., Conclusions: Vape shops represent a new type of retailer for tobacco products. Vape shops have potential to promote e-cigarettes for smoking cessation but also sometimes provide inaccurate information and mislabelled products. Given their spatial patterning, vape shops may perpetuate inequities in tobacco use. The growing literature on vape shops is complicated by researchers using different definitions of vape shops (eg, exclusively selling e-cigarettes vs also selling traditional tobacco products)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KMR serves as an expert consultant in litigation against cigarette manufacturers. JGLL and KMR have a royalty interest in store mapping and audit systems owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, but these systems were not used in this study., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Vape shops have been spreading rapidly in the USA since 2008, catering to the fast-growing market for electronic cigarettes. Little is known about the geographic density and proximity of vape shops near colleges., Methods: Names and addresses of vape shops were collected from 3 online directories: Yelp.com, Yellowpages.com and Guidetovaping.com. We identified the prevalence of US-based vape shops and their density and proximity to colleges using a geographic information system. General linear model and negative binomial regression were performed to examine the factors associated with proximity and density of vape shops near colleges., Results: We identified 9945 vape shops in the USA as of December 2015, a nearly threefold increase from 2013. Among the 2755 colleges included in this study, 66.5% had at least 1 vape shop within a 3-mile radius. The median proximity of the nearest vape shop to each college/university was 1.8 miles. Proximity increased by student population, private as compared to public institutions, and location (city vs rural). Within a 1-mile radius, colleges with smoke-free campus policies had a lower density of vape shops (RR=0.6, p=0.002) than those without smoke-free campus policies. Private institutions had a higher density of vape shops (RR=7.8, p<0.0001) than did public institutions. Colleges with campus housing had a lower density of vape shops (RR=0.4, p<0.0001) than those without campus housing, and colleges located in cities had a much higher density of vape shops than those located in rural areas (RR=6.6, p<0.0001). Smoke-free and e-cigarette-free campus policies had significant interactions with college type (private vs public) and campus housing in reducing vape shop density., Conclusions: Vape shops are more likely to be located near private institutions and colleges in cities as opposed to rural areas. Smoke-free and e-cigarette-free campus policies have had significant effects in reducing the density of vape shops but have not reduced the proximity of vape shops to colleges. Regulations on the sale and advertisement of e-cigarettes to youth and young adults are critically needed., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Some scholars suggest that price differences between combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes could be effective in moving current combustible smokers to e-cigarettes, which could reduce tobacco-related death and disease. Currently, in most jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are not subject to the same excise taxes as combustible cigarettes, potentially providing the category with a price advantage over combustible cigarettes. This paper tests whether e-cigarettes tax advantage has translated into a price advantage., Methods: In a sample of 45 countries, the price of combustible cigarettes, disposable e-cigarettes and rechargeable cigarettes were compared., Results: Comparable units of combustible cigarettes cost less than disposable e-cigarettes in almost every country in the sample. While the e-liquids consumed in rechargeable e-cigarettes might cost less per comparable unit than combustible cigarettes, the initial cost to purchase a rechargeable e-cigarette presents a significant cost barrier to switching from smoking to vaping., Discussion: Existing prices of e-cigarettes are generally much higher than of combustible cigarettes. If policymakers wish to tax e-cigarettes less than combustibles, forceful policy action-almost certainly through excise taxation-must raise the price of combustible cigarettes beyond the price of using e-cigarettes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: Rates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use have increased quickly among US adults (3.3% in 2010 to 8.5% in 2013) and youth (4.5% in 2013 to 13.4% in 2014). As state and local governments consider regulatory policies, understanding what smokers believe about e-cigarettes and how they value e-cigarettes is important., Methods: Using data from a convenience sample of Florida adult smokers (N=765), we investigated the value smokers place on specific attributes of e-cigarettes (availability of flavours, effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, healthier alternative to regular cigarettes, ability to use e-cigarettes in public places) by asking smokers how much they would be willing to pay for e-cigarettes with and without each of these attributes., Results: For cigarette-only and dual users, losing the ability to use an e-cigarette as a quit aid and losing the harm reduction of an e-cigarette significantly reduced the price respondents were willing to pay for an e-cigarette. For cigarette-only users, not being able to use an e-cigarette indoors and losing flavours also significantly reduced the price respondents were willing to pay for an e-cigarette., Conclusion: Our results suggest that smokers value multiple attributes of e-cigarettes. Our valuation measures also appear to align with smokers' beliefs about e-cigarettes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Three categories of e-cigarette brands have emerged within the US market: e-cigarette brands developed by cigarette manufacturers, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation. In the absence of federal regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, we assessed differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these categories., Methods: Brand websites for top-selling e-cigarette brands from each of these categories were examined in October of 2015 to compare website access restrictions, online sales practices and products sold, including e-cigarette model type (eg, 'cigalike' vs advanced systems) and options available (eg, flavoured, nicotine free)., Results: Website access to brands developed by cigarette manufacturers was restricted to users aged 21 years or older, and one website required user registration. In addition, these brands were exclusively reusable/rechargeable 'cigalikes.' Limited flavour options were available for these products, and nicotine-free options were not sold. In contrast, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation generally required website visitors to be 18, offered a nicotine-free option, and most offered disposable products and an array of flavoured products (eg, fruit/candy flavours)., Conclusions: This exploratory study finds differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these three e-cigarette brand categories, with brands developed by cigarette manufacturers adopting a particularly distinctive product and sales strategy. Anticipated regulation of e-cigarettes in the USA may be influencing these product and sales decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)