Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 1;145(6):e20191861. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1861

TABLE 1.

Tobacco Advertising by Tobacco Product Type, Store Type, and Poverty Level (2015–2018)

Overall Store Type Poverty Indicator
Chain Convenience Store (n = 24) Nonchain Convenience Store (n = 78) Gas Kiosk (n = 12) Other (n = 27) P Low Middle High P
Presence of exterior advertisements, % of stores
 Cigarettes 54.8 79.2 59.3 52.1 21.3 <.001 50.0 58.7 53.8 .72
  Menthol 45.6 67.7 50.0 41.7 14.8 <.001 39.8 50.5 44.2 .58
 Cigars 18.1 28.1 20.5 16.7 2.8 .01 14.8 22.8 16.1 .41
  Flavored 11.5 19.8 12.5 14.6 0.0 .02 11.4 13.6 10.3 .77
 E-cigarettes 23.0 53.1 20.2 12.5 9.3 .004 34.1 35.9 11.6 <.001
  Flavored 7.6 16.7 6.7 4.2 3.7 .05 12.5 14.7 1.7 <.001
 Smokeless tobacco 3.9 15.6 1.6 4.2 0.0 <.001 10.2 5.4 1.0 .01
  Flavored 3.2 12.5 1.3 4.2 0.0 .001 10.2 4.3 0.3 .004
Presence of interior advertisements, % of stores
 Cigarettes 67.7 91.7 67.9 12.5 70.4 <.001 58.0 85.9 59.2 .002
  Menthol 58.0 88.5 57.1 6.3 56.5 <.001 44.3 75.0 51.4 .005
 Cigars 22.9 57.3 20.8 0.0 8.3 <.001 23.9 32.6 16.4 .04
  Flavored 13.7 35.4 12.5 0.0 3.7 <.001 12.5 19.6 10.3 .14
 E-cigarettes 28.4 71.9 21.5 0.0 22.2 <.001 29.5 44.0 18.2 .001
  Flavored 12.1 30.2 9.6 0.0 8.3 <.001 13.6 20.7 6.2 .003
 Smokeless tobacco 14.0 66.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 <.001 19.3 25.5 5.1 .003
  Flavored 11.2 56.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 <.001 15.9 20.7 3.8 .002
Volume of exterior advertisements, mean No.
 Cigarettes 2.5 4.6 2.1 4.4 0.9 <.001 3.7 3.0 1.8 .06
 Cigars 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 .05 0.4 0.4 0.3 .78
 E-cigarettes 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 <.001 0.9 0.8 0.2 .01
 Smokeless tobacco 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 <.001 0.1 0.1 0.0 .01
 Total 3.4 6.6 2.9 5.5 1.2 <.001 5.1 4.3 2.3 .02
Volume of interior advertisements, mean No.
 Cigarettes 4.0 7.3 3.9 0.1 3.2 <.001 3.7 5.7 3.1 .002
 Cigars 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.4 .07 0.4 0.7 0.4 .27
 E-cigarettes 0.7 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.4 <.001 1.0 1.0 0.3 .003
 Smokeless tobacco 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 <.001 0.4 0.5 0.1 .003
 Total 5.4 11.5 4.9 0.1 3.9 <.001 5.5 7.9 3.9 .001

Poverty is categorized as follows: low, ≤25%; middle, 26% to 74%; and high, ≥75%. Poverty is based on the percentage of the students in the local high school who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.