Abstract
Objective
The tobacco/nicotine retail landscape is continuously evolving. Monitoring product availability is critical to identifying industry response to regulatory action and shifts in consumer behavior and patterns of use.
Methods
Beginning January 2024, a rapid retail surveillance system was implemented in brick-and-mortar retailers across six U.S. sentinel sites (California, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Vermont) with diverse policy environments and tobacco use patterns. At each site, biannual audits were conducted in approximately 60 retailers. Between January 2024 and May 2025, audits were staggered across months and used a standardized Qualtrics-based tool to document tobacco/nicotine product availability, including flavors, brands, and novel products.
Results
Nicotine pouch availability increased from 71.6 % to 81.3 % across waves. Cigarillos and cigarettes remained consistently available in 90 % of retailers, while e-cigarettes were found in ∼75 %. Flavored products were available across categories. The number of unique nicotine pouch brands increased over time, with variation by retailer type and site.
Conclusions
Rapid surveillance enables timely detection of market trends and potential policy non-compliance. Continued data collection and integration with other surveillance tools will enhance tobacco control monitoring.
Keywords: Surveillance, Point-of-sale, Retail, Tobacco, Nicotine, Electronic cigarettes, Nicotine pouches
Highlights
-
•
Rapid retail surveillance can identify new tobacco/nicotine products and brands.
-
•
Availability of nicotine pouches reached over 80 % in the store sample.
-
•
The number of unique brands of nicotine pouches increased over the study period.
1. Introduction
The tobacco retail environment is the primary venue where consumers are frequently exposed to and purchase tobacco products (Kruger et al., 2017), a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024). The strategic importance of this environment is reflected in the tobacco industry's significant financial investment here – over $9 billion was spent in 2021 on marketing cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes including point-of-sale advertising, price discounts, and promotional allowances paid to retailers (Federal Trade Commission, 2023a, Federal Trade Commission, 2023b; 2022). Exposure to tobacco products and marketing at the point of sale is also associated with tobacco use, including susceptibility, initiation, and continued use (Martin-Gall et al., 2024; Paynter and Edwards, 2009; Robertson et al., 2015; Travis et al., 2022). Therefore, surveillance of the tobacco retail environment is fundamental to understanding changes in the market and how they may ultimately influence product use.
Given rapid tobacco product diversification, timely data from retail settings can play a critical role in capturing shifts in the evolving marketplace where conventional methods such as retail sales data and population surveys may lag. For example, awareness of new products, like pod-mod disposable e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches were first noticed at points of sale as far back as 2019 (Delnevo et al., 2020; Robichaud et al., 2019). Data from the retail environment can enable early identification of emerging tobacco products and brands before they appear in sales data and confirm whether a product or brand identified by other data sources, such as industry marketing, is sold in U.S. brick-and-mortar retailers. Additionally, while scanner data provides information on sales, it lacks information for all retailer types (e.g., tobacco specialty shops) or details on the type of retailers or communities where products are sold (Giovenco et al., 2025; Rose et al., 2022). Retail surveillance can also assess regulatory compliance, such as adherence to marketing denial orders, or compliance with state and local tobacco policies, such as flavored sales restrictions (Alam et al., 2025; Gammon et al., 2025). Continuous surveillance of the tobacco retail environment is one important tool to track new products, identify products or brands that should be assessed in behavior surveillance systems, detect potential regulatory circumvention, and inform policy at all levels.
As part of the Rutgers Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco (CRST), we designed a rapid tobacco retail surveillance system to generate and refine signals of interest, with emphasis on key surveillance attributes including flexibility, acceptability, and timeliness. While prior studies provided valuable insights into tobacco marketing and product availability at point-of-sale, many often employ cross-sectional designs, focus on a single geographic area, or evaluate specific polices or products (Henriksen et al., 2016a; Henriksen et al., 2024; Roberts et al., 2015; Hosler et al., 2016; Giovenco et al., 2018; Giovenco et al., 2025; Rose et al., 2022), which reflect the distinct objectives of those surveillance activities.
The CRST system builds on this foundation by introducing a rapid, flexible, longitudinal surveillance model responsive to the evolving tobacco retail landscape. It features repeated monitoring of diverse product categories, flavors, and brands in a largely consistent retailer sample across varied geographies and retailer types, enabling rapid identification of new items or trends. Standardized tools ensure consistency across waves while allowing modifications to capture signs of market shifts.
The aim of this paper is to:1) document our point-of-sale surveillance sampling and protocol and 2) provide an overview of data collected over the first three waves, including tobacco retailer and product characteristics.
2. Methods
2.1. Study protocol
2.1.1. Sites and retailer samples
Retail audits were conducted across six sentinel sites located in California, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Vermont. These states were chosen because they differed in rural/urban composition and demographic makeup as well as tobacco use patterns and tobacco policies. For example, in 2022, state-level adult cigarette smoking prevalence ranged from as low as 5.6 % in California to as high as 13.3 % in Kentucky (Stone et al., 2025). Cities within these states reflected sites of collaborators who could support data collection efforts (e.g., Lexington, Kentucky, is home to University of Kentucky; Columbus, Ohio, to Ohio State University, etc.). These site selections allowed us to leverage existing infrastructure and local expertise while ensuring geographic diversity and feasibility of repeated data collection. Each site employed state-specific methods to identify tobacco and vape retailers, with variations depending on the availability of retailer licensing. New Jersey (since 2019), and North Carolina and Kentucky (since 2021), previously collaborated on retail audits (Rose et al., 2022). We leveraged these existing retailer samples, while remaining sites selected new samples to capture a diverse range of products and retailers.
The primary goal was to identify emerging products and brands, with a secondary aim of monitoring changes in product availability over time. Each site aimed to audit approximately 50 traditional tobacco retailers (e.g., convenience stores) and 10 specialty tobacco stores (e.g., smoke or vape shops) for repeated measurement. This research was classified as Not Human Subjects Research by the Institutional Review Board at each site. Details for each site's sample are described in Table 1. Table S1 summarizes additional characteristics of the sample by site and wave.
Table 1.
Retailer sample by site and wave, Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Point of Sale, Waves 1–3 (January 2024 to May 2025), six U.S. sites.
| State | Wave 1 Jan-May 2024 |
Wave 2 Jun-Nov 2024 |
Wave 3 Jan-May 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | 64 | 61 | 61 |
| Kentucky | 60 | 61 | 60 |
| New Jersey | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| North Carolina | 51 | 56 | 61 |
| Ohio | 58 | 59 | 59 |
| Vermont | 61 | 60 | 60 |
| Total | 359 | 362 | 366 |
Note: Variability in retailer numbers reflects temporary closures, data collector refinement in finding retailers in rural areas, and replacement of retailers for closure, safety reasons, or lack of future product variation (i.e., deli). Thus, while most retailer are visited repeatedly, numbers vary slightly across waves.
2.1.2. Selection of retailers
California: Using a December 2023 list of licensed tobacco retailers obtained from California's Department of Tax and Fee Administration, addresses were geocoded in ArcMap v10.8.2 (100 % mapping rate). Starting with the 60 closest retailers to city landmarks in San Diego (Horton Plaza) and San Jose (Diridon station), Google searches excluded closed businesses, lounges/restaurants, and redundant chain stores (San Diego = 28; San Jose, n = 6); only the nearest chain retailer was retained. Remaining San Diego retailers were attempted (n = 33), and the closest 36 of 54 retailers in San Jose were attempted, including 15 % overage (n = 9). Five retailers were found permanently closed during fielding. Wave 1 audits were completed at 64 retailers (San Diego n = 31; San Jose n = 33). In Wave 2, adjustments were made for safety (San Jose, n = 1) and limited product variety (San Diego, n = 6; San Jose, n = 1). Audits were attempted at remaining retailers (San Diego n = 25; San Jose n = 31), with five new San Deigo stores added. Wave 2 totaled 61 audits (San Diego, n = 30; San Jose = 31). Wave 3 used the same sample, with two closed retailers replaced to complete at least 60 audits (San Diego, n = 30; San Jose = 31). California's flavored tobacco ban (effective Dec 2022) and local restrictions were in effect during data collection.
Kentucky: For a prior study (Rose et al., 2022), tobacco retailers were identified from a 2020 Synar compliance list and vape shops via validated Google/Yelp searches (Lee et al., 2016). In Summer 2021, audits were attempted in 60 retailers (50 randomly selected retailers and 10 purposively selected vape shops) Fayette County. Seven retailers were excluded and replaced due to permanent closure, safety, refusal, or no tobacco sold; 59 audits were completed (one replacement retailer not audited due to safety). In Summer 2022, 54 audits were completed from the same sample with five retailers replaced (permanently closed or unsafe) and seven additional audits completed for a total of 62 audits (two replacement retailers permanently closed). For CRST, the 2023 sampling frame was updated using Synar lists Yelp/Google searches for vape shops. Eight stores from the 2022 retailer sample were removed because of permanent closure (3), renovation (1), refusal (1) or no tobacco sales (3), and replaced resulting in 60 retail audits in Wave 1. In Wave 2, five retailers were removed after refusal (4) or no tobacco sold (1) and replaced, totaling 61 retail audits. In Wave 3, six retailers were removed due to closure (four) or refusal (two) and 5 retailers replaced, with 60 audits completed. Kentucky's vape registry law, (effective January 1, 2025) was in effect during Wave 3.
New Jersey: For a prior study (Hrywna et al., 2023), 100 retailers within 25 miles of New Brunswick were randomly sampled from a 2019 list of 4011 licensed retailers, excluding liquor stores (n = 529); half were from high population density municipalities (n = 1884) and half from low population density municipalities (n = 1598). Vape shops within a 25-mile radius of New Brunswick, were added to the sample. Fourteen retailers were removed from the sample because of permanent closure (four), being bar/liquor reatilers (four), safety (three), or tobacco not sold (three), leaving 86 retailers. In 2021, retailers selling only one type of tobacco product were excluded, resulting in 65 eligible retailers. Five more were removed due to permanent closure (two) or limited products sold (three), leaving 60 licensed retailers and 10 vape shops. In 2022, four closures reduced the sample to 56 licensed tobacco retailers and 10 vape shops. In 2023, the sample remained unchanged. In 2024, one closure reduced the final sample to 55 licensed tobacco retailers and 10 vape shops (n = 65). Across Waves 1–3, 65 audits were completed. New Jersey's flavored e-cigarette ban (effective March 2020) was in effect during data collection.
North Carolina: In North Carolina, where there is no tobacco retailer licensing, a validated method (D'Angelo et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2016) was used to identify tobacco retailers, supplemented by a manual Google Maps search of vape shops. After standardizing and de-duplicating addresses, 231 retailers in Pitt County formed the sampling frame. A simple random sample was selected, and all vape shops were included for a total of 55 audits. After excluding closed retailers, 51 retail audits were completed in Wave 1. For Wave 2, nine additional retailers were randomly selected from an updated sampling frame (N = 219), resulting in 64 attempts and 57 completed audits (56 included after exclusion of one retailer where no tobacco was sold). In Wave 3, using the same list (n = 64), 61 audits (three excluded for closure, safety, or no tobacco sold).
Ohio: The sampling frame included all licensed tobacco retailers from a list obtained from the Ohio Department of Health in 2023 and a separate list of vape and other specialty shops obtained from another ongoing project (Jenkins et al., 2022). After merging and de-duplicating lists, the statewide list included 11,498 retailers. Excluding pharmacies, large grocery chains, and gas kiosks and limiting to a 25-mile radius of Columbus, the final sampling frame included 1106 retailers. A stratified random sample of 60 retailers (50 traditional, 10 specialty) was selected, split between Franklin County, which includes the City of Columbus (60 %, N = 30 traditional & six specialty), or adjacent counties (40 %, n = 20 traditional & four specialty). Retailers confirmed as permanently closed were replaced. In Wave 1, eight retailers (seven traditional, one specialty) were excluded due to refusal, no tobacco sold, or “drive through” only establishments with no walk-in retail. The same steps were followed to replace these retailers in our sample, and 58 retail audits were completed. In Wave 2, eight retailers (seven traditional, one specialty) were replaced because of limited product offerings, and 59 retailer audits were completed (one temporarily closed). Wave 3 also had 59 audits (one permanently closed). Columbus' flavored tobacco ban on the sale of flavored tobacco (effective January 2024) was in effect during data collection and 23 of 60 retailers were in jurisdictions subject to the ban.
Vermont: The sampling frame was based on the 2023 Vermont Department of Health lists of licensed tobacco retailers (n = 830) and tobacco substitute endorsements (n = 488) plus the 2024 list of cannabis retailers (n = 76). The lists were deduplicated and the frame was limited to a 25-mile radius around the city of Underhill, yielding 150 unique tobacco retailers and 28 tobacco substitute endorsements. After removing two restaurants/bars, 50 tobacco retailers and 10 tobacco substitute endorsement retailers were randomly sampled. Two permanently closed retailers and three redundant retailers from the same grocery chain were replaced with retailers from each corresponding randomized list, including one additional retailer for overage. Wave 1 included 61 audits. One retailer closed before Wave 2, resulting in 60 audits for Waves 2 and 3.
2.1.3. Data collection
We followed best practices in retail audits (Feld et al., 2016; Henriksen et al., 2016b; Lee et al., 2014). At each site, at least two data collectors were trained to conduct retail audits. In December 2023, all site supervisors (i.e., site PIs or project managers) and data collectors (e.g., research staff) completed five hours of training and conducted practice audits in the field before surveillance began. Data for each retailer was collected in person by a trained data collector using a standardized Qualtrics survey completed on a smartphone.
Surveillance began in January 2024, with data collection occurring approximately every six months at each site and was staggered by site to enable continuous monitoring. In addition, our full team of partners meet monthly to review findings and discuss any protocol updates.
2.1.4. Measures
All sites contributed to the development of the survey instrument and coding instructions. Audits assessed the availability of tobacco and nicotine products including cigarettes, cigarillos, filtered and premium cigars, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (e.g., snus, moist snuff), nicotine pouches, other oral nicotine products (e.g., lozenges, gum, dissolvable tabs and toothpicks), as well as flavors and brands of these products; availability of hookah and nicotine replacement therapy was also noted. Data collectors were asked to write in products or brands and upload images of interest, with emphasis on identifying new or uncommon products. Retailer type was categorized as: chain convenience, non-chain convenience, pharmacy, gas kiosk (e.g., no convenience store), dollar store, vape/tobacco shop, liquor store, or other (e.g., supermarket, fast food, etc.). Products and brands included in the audit tool were updated at each wave based on findings from prior waves, surveillance sources (e.g., National Youth Tobacco Survey, industry marketing, sales data), and regulatory actions (e.g., marketing authorizations, Modified Risk Tobacco Product orders, warning letters). For example, new brands reported frequently at Wave 1 were added as standard options at Wave 2 to reduce write-ins and enable longitudinal tracking. The survey took approximately 10 min per retailer, depending on product availability.
2.2. Statistical analysis
We used descriptive statistics to summarize overall retailer characteristics and product availability across waves, as well as changes in the availability of nicotine pouch brands among the subset of retailers audited in all three waves. Analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.2.
3. Results
As shown in Table 1, the number of retail audits ranged from 359 in Wave 1 to 366 in Wave 3; in 325 retailers, of those retail audits were repeated in all three waves.
Table 2 presents the availability of various tobacco and nicotine products observed across three waves of retail audits. Key trends include high and stable availability of cigarettes and cigarillos/cigars across all waves (≥90 %), with menthol cigarettes sold in roughly three-quarters of retailers and menthol substitutes in a small proportion of retailers. Filtered cigars were available in roughly half of retailers while a much smaller proportion of retailers sold premium cigars. E-cigarettes remained consistently available in three-quarters of retailers, with wide availability of flavored and unflavored varieties. Nicotine pouch availability increased steadily, surpassing 80 % by Wave 3, with flavored and unflavored options. For this paper, we did not distinguish availability by flavor policy context.
Table 2.
Product availability among tobacco and vape retailers at each wave, Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Point of Sale, Waves 1–3 (January 2024 to May 2025), six U.S. sites.
| Wave 1 (Jan. 2024-May 2024) |
Wave 2 (May 2024-Oct. 2024) |
Wave 3 (Dec. 2024-May 2025) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Product |
n = 359 |
n = 362 |
n = 366 |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Cigarette | 323 (90.0) | 328 (90.6) | 332 (90.7) |
| Menthol | 241 (74.6) | 249 (75.9) | 257 (77.4) |
| Menthol substitute | 52 (16.1) | 55 (16.8) | 48 (14.5) |
| Cigarillo/Cigar | 323 (90.0) | 326 (90.1) | 334 (91.3) |
| Explicit flavor | 262 (81.1) | 270 (82.8) | 284 (85.0) |
| Filtered Cigar | 204 (56.8) | 195 (53.9) | 190 (51.9) |
| Explicit flavor | 108 (52.9) | 113 (57.9) | 116 (61.1) |
| Premium Cigar | 46 (12.8) | 71 (19.6) | 44 (12.0) |
| Explicit flavor | 1 (2.2) | 4 (5.6) | 3 (6.8) |
| E-cigarette | 267 (74.4) | 276 (76.2) | 277 (75.7) |
| Pod | 221 (82.8) | 234 (84.8) | 232 (83.8) |
| Disposable | 209 (78.3) | 233 (84.4) | 233 (84.1) |
| Menthol, mint, ice flavor | 197 (73.8) | 207 (75.0) | 211 (76.2) |
| Other explicit flavor | 177 (66.3) | 180 (65.2) | 198 (71.5) |
| Unflavored (e.g., clear or naked) | 170 (63.7) | 148 (53.6) | 163 (58.8) |
| Smokeless tobacco | 234 (65.2) | 233 (64.4) | 241 (65.8) |
| Explicit flavor | 156 (66.7) | 186 (79.8) | 195 (80.9) |
| Nicotine pouch | 258 (71.9) | 281 (77.6) | 299 (81.7) |
| Menthol, mint, ice flavor | 208 (80.6) | 231 (82.2) | 239 (79.9) |
| Other explicit flavor | 197 (76.4) | 227 (80.8) | 242 (80.9) |
| Unflavored (e.g., smooth, original) | 209 (81.0) | 219 (77.9) | 253 (84.6) |
| Other oral nicotine | 5 (1.4) | 8 (2.2) | 8 (2.2) |
| Explicit flavor | 4 (80.0) | 6 (75.0) | 8 (100.0) |
| Hookah | 77 (21.4) | 70 (19.3) | 65 (17.8) |
| Nicotine replacement therapy | 59 (16.4) | 65 (18.0) | 44 (12.0) |
Notes: Percentages for indented sub‑rows are calcuated among retailers carrying the parent product (e.g., Menthol as % of cigarette‑selling retailers) rather than the full wave sample.
Table 3 presents the mean number of nicotine pouch brands available in the 325 retailers audited at all three waves. From Waves 1–3, there were statistically significant increases in the number of brands available across some retailer types and all six sites. While chain convenience stores exhibited the highest mean number of nicotine pouch brands overall (from 3.1 to 4.6), followed by non-chain convenience stores (1.1 to 1.7), the largest growth in the mean number of nicotine pouch brands was among vape/tobacco shops (0.8 to 2.8). All sites saw significant increases in the mean number of available nicotine pouch brands, indicating broad expansion of nicotine pouch brands availability over time. The most frequently available brands were also the top-selling brands (Table S2) (He et al., 2025). In total, we identified 48 unique nicotine pouch brands across waves. In addition, several vape brands entered the nicotine pouch market including BrixzNYC, Elf Bar (with Elf nicotine pouch), JNR, Juicehead, Loon, Mr. Fog, Tyson, Zeo, and Geek Bar (with G-Pulse nicotine pouch). Fig. 1, Fig. 2 include select images of tobacco/nicotine products or brands newly identified across Waves 1–3.
Table 3.
Mean number of nicotine pouch brands available in tobacco and vape retailers, by retailer type, Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Point of Sale, Waves 1 and 3 (January 2024 to May 2025), six U.S. sites.
| Wave 1 (Jan 2024 - May 2024) |
Wave 3 (Dec 2024 - May 2025) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N = 3251 | Mean | SD | N = 3251 | Mean | SD | p-val |
| Retailer type | |||||||
| Chain Convenience | 110 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 110 | 4.6 | 1.6 | <0.001 |
| Convenience (non-chain) | 99 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 99 | 1.7 | 1.9 | <0.001 |
| Drug store | 13 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 13 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 0.67 |
| Gas Kiosk | 6 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 6 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.06 |
| Dollar store | 21 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 21 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.26 |
| Vape/tobacco shop | 53 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53 | 2.8 | 2.7 | <0.001 |
| Liquor store | 8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 8 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.08 |
| Other | 15 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 15 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 0.01 |
| State | |||||||
| New Jersey | 64 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 64 | 2.4 | 2.6 | <0.001 |
| California | 53 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 53 | 1.9 | 1.5 | <0.001 |
| Ohio | 50 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 50 | 3.3 | 2.5 | <0.001 |
| North Carolina | 45 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 45 | 2.4 | 2.1 | <0.001 |
| Kentucky | 54 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 54 | 4.4 | 2.1 | <0.001 |
| Vermont | 59 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 59 | 3.3 | 1.9 | <0.001 |
| Overall | 325 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 325 | 2.9 | 2.3 | <0.001 |
Note: P-values are from paired t-tests between wave 1 and 3.
n of retailers audited in all 3 waves.
Fig. 1.
Select vape products or brands identified in Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Point of Sale Waves 1–3, six U.S. sites.
Fig. 2.
Select oral nicotine products or brands identified in Center for Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Point of Sale Waves 1–3, six U.S. sites.
4. Discussion
This work aimed to document the design and implementation of rapid retail surveillance that can identify emerging tobacco and nicotine products and detect shifts in product availability across diverse U.S. retail environments. Over three waves of data collection, the number of unique nicotine brands expanded significantly, particularly in convenience stores and vape/tobacco shops, with 48 unique brands identified. Not surprisingly, we also observed consistently high availability of cigarettes and cigarillos. These findings highlight the dynamic nature of the retail tobacco landscape and the importance of timely surveillance to capture early signals of market change.
Since this was designed as a public health surveillance system, we prioritized feasibility, flexibility, and timeliness and thus, did not conduct double coding or inter-rater reliability checks. However, a key strength of the system is repeated audits in many of the same retailers over time, allowing for consistent tracking of trends. Although product availability does not equate to consumer uptake, prior research has shown that retail availability can precede rapid adoption, as seen with JUUL in 2018–2019 (Phan, 2023). Importantly, this research is part of the broader surveillance framework of CRST that triangulates point-of-sale data with retail scanner data to contextualize sales and consumption and population surveys to understand user demographics and behaviors. This integrated approach enhances the ability to monitor and respond to emerging products, brands, and trends in real time. Future work could further explore differences by retailer type and geographic characteristics, including the impact of flavor restrictions.
5. Conclusion
The CRST retail point-of-sale surveillance system prioritized attributes that would ensure the flexibility to adapt to changing needs, acceptability to ensure sustained engagement, and timeliness in leveraging data for rapid response. This surveillance system was designed and successfully implemented to improve understanding of the changing tobacco retail marketplace in ways that inform policy and programs. Such surveillance data are needed to intervene against the substantial morbidity and mortality caused by tobacco products.
Funding
This work was supported by a grant U01CA278695 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NCI or FDA.
Authors contribution
The authors receive funding via grants from the National Institutes of Health (MH, CA, JGLL, SWR, LH, DM, CDD, ER, JGV, TOJ, EA, KR, MT, PVB) and grants or contracts from state health departments (MH, CA, LH, TOJ, KR). SWR also receives funding from CDC and NIDA. LH and TOJ also receive funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. DM receives funding from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. JGLL has a royalty interest in a retail audit and store location mapping system owned and licensed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The system was not used in this research. CDD serves as the chair of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Board.
Data statement
Data are available upon request.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M. Hrywna: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis. C. Ackerman: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Data curation. J.G.L. Lee: Writing – original draft, Project administration. S.W. Rose: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. L. Henriksen: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. D. Mays: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. C.D. Delnevo: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The Rutgers Center for Rapid Tobacco Surveillance (CRST) Point of Sale Team also includes Reed EC,2 van de Venne JG,3 Johnson TO,4 Alvarado E,5 Roberts K,1 Tomaino M,1 Barnwell PV1.
Footnotes
This article is part of a Special issue entitled: ‘Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco Product Marketing, Sales, and Use Behavior’ published in Preventive Medicine Reports.
This article is published as part of a supplement sponsored by the Center for the Rapid Surveillance of Tobacco (CRST), Grant Number: 1U01CA278695.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103343.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material 1
Supplementary material 2
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
- Alam A., Henriksen L., Johnson T.O., Prochaska J.J., Schleicher N. Early assessment of compliance with California’s flavoured tobacco sales prohibition: evidence from vape shops. Tob. Control. 2025 doi: 10.1136/tc-2024-059047. tc-2024-059047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- D’Angelo H., Fleischhacker S., Rose S.W., Ribisl K.M. Field validation of secondary data sources for enumerating retail tobacco outlets in a state without tobacco outlet licensing. Health Place. 2014;28:38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Delnevo C., Giovenco D.P., Hrywna M. Rapid proliferation of illegal pod-mod disposable e-cigarettes. Tob. Control. 2020;29:e150–e151. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Federal Trade Commission . Federal Trade Commission; 2022. Federal Trade Commission E-Cigarette Report for 2019–2020. [Google Scholar]
- Federal Trade Commission . Federal Trade Commission; 2023. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report for 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Federal Trade Commission, 2023b. Federal Trade Commission Smokeless Tobacco Report for 2022. Federal Trade Commission.
- Feld A.L., Johnson T.O., Byerly K.W., Ribisl K.M. How to conduct store observations of tobacco marketing and products. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2016;13 doi: 10.5888/pcd13.150504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gammon D.G., Whitney M.A., Nonnemaker J., Henriksen L., Schleicher N.C., Andersen-Rodgers E., Colonna R., Rogers T. Measuring changes in non-cigarette tobacco product availability following California’s Statewide Flavored tobacco sales restriction: a synthetic control method using retail scanner data. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2025 doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaf109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Giovenco D.P., Ackerman C., Hrywna M., Delnevo C.D. Changes in the availability and promotion of non-cigarette tobacco products near high schools in New Jersey, USA. Tob. Control. 2018;27(5):578–579. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053800. Epub 2017 Aug 10. PMID: 28798262; PMCID: PMC5997549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Giovenco D.P., Spillane T.E., Lee H.M., Ali N., Little R.M.P., Rahman S.N., Yagoda S.S. Retail availability of Oral nicotine pouches in three US cities: a geographic analysis. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2025 doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- He Y., Zhang Z., Keller-Hamilton B., Mays D., Wagener T.L., Berman M.L., Shang C. Trends of oral nicotine pouch prices and sales by product characteristics in the USA, 2021–2024. Tob. Control. 2025 doi: 10.1136/tc-2024-059222. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40506226; PMCID: PMC12285603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen L., Schleicher N.C., Barker D.C., Liu Y., Chaloupka F.J. Prices for Tobacco and Nontobacco Products in Pharmacies Versus Other Stores: Results From Retail Marketing Surveillance in California and in the United States. Am. J. Public Health. 2016;106(10):1858–1864. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303306. Epub 2016 Aug 23. PMID: 27552272; PMCID: PMC5024371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen L., Ribisl K.M., Rogers T., Moreland-Russell S., Barker D.M., Sarris Esquivel N., Loomis B., Crew E., Combs T. Standardized tobacco assessment for retail settings (STARS): dissemination and implementation research. Tob. Control. 2016;25:i67–i74. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen L., Johnson T.O., Mahoney M., Schleicher N.C., Ali A., Prochaska J.J. Rapid-response surveillance of the first US test market for VLN cigarettes. Tob. Control. 2024;33(4):549–552. doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057888.PMID:36927515;PMCID:PMC11242917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hosler A.S., Done D.H., Michaels I.H., Guarasi D.C., Kammer J.R. Longitudinal trends in tobacco availability, tobacco advertising, and ownership changes of food stores, Albany, New York, 2003-2015. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2016;13 doi: 10.5888/pcd13.160002.PMID:27172257;PMCID:PMC4867654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hrywna M., Kong A.Y., Ackerman C., Giovenco D.P., Spillane T.E., Lee J.G.L., Hudson S.V., Delnevo C.D. Assessing the effectiveness of tobacco 21 Laws to reduce underage access to tobacco: protocol for a repeated multi-site study. MPs. 2023;6:27. doi: 10.3390/mps6020027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins C., Schwartz E., Onnen N., Craigmile P.F., Roberts M.E. Variations in tobacco retailer type across community characteristics: place matters. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2022;19 doi: 10.5888/pcd19.210454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kruger J., Jama A., Lee J.G.L., Kennedy S., Banks A., Sharapova S., Agaku I. Point-of-sale cigarette purchase patterns among U.S. adult smokers—National Adult Tobacco Survey, 2012–2014. Prev. Med. 2017;101:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee J.G.L., Henriksen L., Myers A.E., Dauphinee A.L., Ribisl K.M. A systematic review of store audit methods for assessing tobacco marketing and products at the point of sale. Tob. Control. 2014;23:98–106. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee J., D’Angelo H., Kuteh J., Martin R. Identification of vape shops in two North Carolina counties: an approach for states without retailer licensing. IJERPH. 2016;13:1050. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martin-Gall V., Neil A., Macintyre K., Rehman S., Nguyen T.P., Harding B., Gall S. Tobacco retail availability and smoking—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol. Rev. 2024;43:1718–1732. doi: 10.1111/dar.13936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paynter J., Edwards R. The impact of tobacco promotion at the point of sale: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2009;11:25–35. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntn002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Phan C. 2023. Ethics, Society, and Technology Initiatives - the Evolution of Juul: A Case Study in Design. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts M.E., Berman M.L., Slater M.D., Hinton A., Ferketich A.K. Point-of-sale tobacco marketing in rural and urban Ohio: Could the new landscape of Tobacco products widen inequalities? Prev. Med. 2015;81:232–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.08.024. Epub 2015 Sep 9. PMID: 26363447; PMCID: PMC4679669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robertson L., McGee R., Marsh L., Hoek J. A systematic review on the impact of point-of-Sale tobacco promotion on smoking. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2015;17:2–17. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robichaud M.O., Seidenberg A.B., Byron M.J. 2019. Tobacco companies introduce ‘tobacco-free’ nicotine pouches. Tob Control tobaccocontrol-2019-055321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rose S.W., Annabathula A., Westneat S., van de Venne J., Hrywna M., Ackerman C., Lee J.G.L., Sesay M., Giovenco D.P., Spillane T., Hudson S.V., Delnevo C.D. Neighborhood distribution of availability of newer tobacco products: a US four-site study, 2021. Prev. Med. Rep. 2022;30 doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.102028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stone M.D., Pierce J.P., Dang B., McMenamin S.B., Donaldson C.D., Zhang X., Strong D.R., Shi Y., Messer K., Trinidad D.R. State and sociodemographic trends in US cigarette smoking with future projections. JAMA Netw. Open. 2025;8(4) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.6834.PMID:40279129;PMCID:PMC12032569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Travis N., Levy D.T., McDaniel P.A., Henriksen L. Tobacco retail availability and cigarette and e-cigarette use among youth and adults: a scoping review. Tob. Control. 2022;31:e175–e188. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . US Department of Health and Human Services; Washington (DC): 2024. Eliminating Tobacco-Related Disease and Death: Addressing Disparities: A Report of the Surgeon General. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary material 1
Supplementary material 2
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.