A new form of nicotine retailers: a systematic review of the sales and marketing practices of vape shops

Lee, Joseph G. L.; Orlan, Elizabeth; Sewell, Kerry; Ribisl, Kurt M.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054015

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Little research has examined the extent to which CBD or THC products are being sold by vape shops (typically been defined as those selling vaping devices and nicotine e-liquids but not conventional tobacco products). ( Lee et al, 2018 ) Intuitively, the increasing prevalence of vaping marijuana, particularly in states with legalized marijuana, ( Goodman et al, 2020 ) suggests that vape shops may profit from catering to CBD and/or marijuana consumer markets. ( Tully, 2020 ) One study examined the New Hampshire vape shops and head shops ( Kong et al, 2017 ) (e.g., outlets specializing in smoking products and accessories [e.g., hookah tobacco/pipes, blunt wraps, bongs], including vaping products Giovenco, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vape shop owners’/managers’ attitudes about CBD, THC, and marijuana legal markets

Berg¹,

Getachew

Pulvers

et al. 2020

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Vape shop owners/managers perceive minimal risk and therapeutic benefits of CBD. They held diverse perspectives regarding marijuana retail and its potential impact. Some owners/merchants do not consider the CBD or THC markets in their business. Others indicated high levels of enthusiasm for the growing retail marijuana market.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vape shop owners’/managers’ attitudes about CBD, THC, and marijuana legal markets

Berg¹,

Getachew

Pulvers

et al. 2020

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with research documenting disparities in the distribution of vape shops, Black and Hispanic young adults were less likely to correctly identify second-and third-generation devices as e-cigs compared with their white counterparts. 12,13 Higher education was also associated with correctly identifying the blu e-cigarette as an e-cig. These results echo sociodemographic trends associated with e-cig use in the US population and may reflect general familiarity with e-cig devices by sociodemographic characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vapes, E-cigs, and Mods: What Do Young Adults Call E-cigarettes?

Pearson

Reed

Villanti

2018

Nicotine &Amp; Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A diverse class of products, “e-cigarettes” present surveillance and regulatory challenges because of nonstandard terminology used to describe subtypes, especially among young adults, where occasional e-cig use is most prevalent. Methods Young adults (n = 3364) in wave 9 (Spring 2016) of the Truth Initiative Young Adult Cohort were randomized to see two of five photos of common e-cig products (three varieties of first-generation e-cigs and one variety each of second- and third-generation e-cigs). Qualitative responses were coded into nine classifications: “e-cigarette, e-hookah, vape-related, mod, other or more than one kind of e-cig, marijuana-related, non-e-cig tobacco product, misidentified, and don’t know.” We characterized the sample and survey responses and conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify participant characteristics associated with correctly identifying the devices as e-cigs. Data were weighted to represent the young adult population in the United States in 2016. Results The majority of participants identified the pictured devices as some type of e-cig (57.7%–83.6%). The white first-generation e-cig, as well as the second- and third-generation e-cigs caused the greatest confusion, with a large proportion of individuals responding “don’t know” (12.2%–25.1%, depending on device) or misidentifying the e-cig as a non-nicotine product (3.4%–16.1%, depending on device) or non-e-cig tobacco product (1.4%–14.6%, depending on device). Conclusions Accurate surveillance and analyses of the effect of e-cigs on health behavior and outcomes depend on accurate data collection on users’ subtype of e-cig. Carefully chosen images in surveys may improve reporting of e-cig use in population studies. Implications Survey researchers using images to cue respondents, especially young adult respondents, should consider avoiding use of white or colorful first-generation e-cigs, which were commonly misidentified in this research, in preference for black or dark colored first-generation e-cigs, such as the blu brand e-cig. Given the sizable proportion of respondents who classified second- and third-generation e-cigs with terminology related to vaping, surveys specifically aimed at assessing use of these types of e-cigs should include the term “vape” when describing this subclass of devices.

show abstract

“…Methods to identify the shops included (a) a review of the ND Attorney General office's “Current License List for Retail Tobacco Products” (North Dakota Office of Attorney General, 2018 ) for shop names indicating a vape shop or tobacco specialty shop; (b) an Internet search using Google Maps and Yelp, based on Lee et al. and’s ( 2018 ) systematic review on identifying vape shops; and (c) names submitted by tobacco prevention coordinators at local public health units (LPHUs), similar to a previous study (Buettner‐Schmidt & Miller, 2017 ). All shops identified by one of the three methods were reverified as meeting the inclusion criteria by examining their Internet presence using Facebook, Yelp, and the shop's web page.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with North Dakota’s smoke‐free law among vape and tobacco specialty shops

Buettner-Schmidt

Miller

Orr

et al. 2021

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine compliance with North Dakota's smoke‐free law in vape shops and other tobacco specialty shops selling electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e‐liquids. Design In this 2019 descriptive study, shops (n = 35) were assessed for compliance with the smoke‐free law by observation of indoor and outdoor areas for smoking or vaping, or evidence of such activity in prohibited areas, and the presence of required no‐smoking signs. Results Only two shops (5.7%) were fully compliant with the smoke‐free law. Full compliance for indoor and outdoor environments was 8.5% and 42.8%, respectively. Vaping occurred inside five shops (14.3%), and smoking occurred outdoors within required smoke‐free areas in two (5.7%) shops. Four (11.4%) and 17 (48.6%) shops complied with indoor and outdoor signage requirements, respectively. Conclusions Overall compliance remained low, although much of the noncompliance was related to signage. Use or evidence of ENDS use occurred both indoors and outdoors where prohibited by law. Classifying ENDS as tobacco products would require tobacco licensure of shops selling ENDS and e‐liquids, aiding in identification of the shops for education and enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with the law and to improve public health protection.

show abstract

A new form of nicotine retailers: a systematic review of the sales and marketing practices of vape shops

Cited by 30 publications

References 41 publications

Vape shop owners’/managers’ attitudes about CBD, THC, and marijuana legal markets

Vape shop owners’/managers’ attitudes about CBD, THC, and marijuana legal markets

Vapes, E-cigs, and Mods: What Do Young Adults Call E-cigarettes?

Compliance with North Dakota’s smoke‐free law among vape and tobacco specialty shops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About