![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Promotion of nicotine replacement therapy and smoking
cessation services at grocery stores
Background—For
New Zealand (NZ) to be smoke-free by 2025, current smokers need to make more
quit attempts and use effective support when doing so. Nicotine replacement
therapies (NRT) are safe and double an individual’s chance of successfully
quitting,1 yet in 2009 only 22% of NZ smokers
aged 15-64 used NRT to support their most recent quit
attempt.2
The 2010 Māori Affairs Select Committee’s (MASC)
Inquiry into the tobacco industry recommended “That nicotine
replacement therapies be required to be sold everywhere tobacco is sold, thereby
ensuring smokers can choose a safe option whenever they crave
nicotine.”3 In 2009, two-thirds
(67%) of NZ smokers regularly bought tobacco from ‘dairies’ (small
independent grocery stores selling mainly tobacco, confectionary and basic
grocery items). Yet, those who used NRT typically obtained it from a pharmacy
either via the government subsidised Quitcard scheme (75%) or purchased at full
price (14%).2 Only 2% bought it from a
supermarket.2 The potential of using dairies to
promote NRT and quit smoking services was investigated in a small
cross-sectional exploratory survey.
Method—Between January and February
2010 a researcher identified and aimed to visit ten dairies that sold and
displayed tobacco and were within 20 km of the researcher’s offices at the
Tamaki campus, University of Auckland. The retailer at the counter at the time
of each visit was invited to take part in a 15-minute face-to-face survey.
Action on Smoking and Health NZ provided a list of dairies, cafés and
small supermarkets that sold but did not display tobacco (n=18) or did not sell
tobacco (n=17). These stores were contacted by telephone as they were situated
in rural and urban locations throughout NZ. The retailer who answered the
telephone was invited to take part in the survey.
The interviewer-administered, paper-based semi-quantitative
survey included questions on; knowledge of quit smoking products, opportunities
and barriers to selling NRT, attitudes towards the in-store promotion of quit
smoking products and services, and attitudes towards possible legislative
measures around the sale of tobacco. The study design was approved by the NZ
multi-region ethics committee (MEC/09/89/EXP).
Results—Retailers from nine dairies
that sold and displayed tobacco agreed to participate in the survey, as did
retailers from five stores that did not display tobacco and eight stores that
did not sell tobacco. The 22 participating retailers had an average age of 44
years (SD=13), 13 were female, two were Māori, 12 were Asian and 9 were of
NZ European ethnicity. Four retailers were current smokers and six were
ex-smokers. Half of the retailers were the store owner/manager. Thirteen of the
22 retailers mentioned NRT when asked to name all the smoking cessation products
they knew of. One retailer currently sold NRT patches and gum, and four others
had tried to sell NRT in the past. Obstacles to selling NRT included weak
consumer demand and a lack of manufacturer and distribution support for
NRT.
Eighteen of the 22 retailers felt dairies should have a role
in promoting quit smoking products and/or services but preferred indirect
measures such as displaying posters advertising NRT or Quitline, providing
educational pamphlets or giving out free product samples. Three retailers said
they would be willing to offer brief verbal advice to customers and eight said
they would be prepared to undertake a short (30-minute) online training course
to become a Quitcard provider. Opponents said they didn’t have the time,
lacked the required knowledge or training, or felt they might offend
customers.
Eleven of the 22 retailers, including five that sold
tobacco, agreed that stores that sell tobacco should be legally required to
provide and promote quit smoking products and services. The remaining 11
retailers felt it should remain the owner’s choice.
Discussion—This is the first study
undertaken in NZ to seek small retailers’ views about promoting quit
smoking products and services in-store. Some limitations should be noted. First,
only a small select group of retailers was interviewed, and other retailers may
have different views and experiences. Second, the decision to interview the
retailer present on the day was a pragmatic one and the 11 store assistants who
were interviewed may have had limited knowledge of store practices or ability to
influence them. Finally, all retailers were interviewed while at work and so
their responses were generally brief.
The Government’s response to the MASC recommendation
was that NRT “be available as widely as possible where it is
accompanied by safe and clinically appropriate
advice”.4 That the retailers
interviewed experienced a lack of customer demand for NRT is perhaps not
surprising given the availability of subsidised NRT through pharmacies and the
limited promotion of NRT through general
sale.5,6 Approximately 16% of those who use NRT
buy it at full price.2
A 2011 survey found that people who bought NRT from
supermarkets did so because the NRT was immediately available and they felt
supermarkets were an easily accessible and non-judgemental
environment.7 Dairies possess these same
qualities and retailers in dairies appear motivated to promote smoking cessation
services and potentially sell smoking cessation products if the marketing and
distribution of such treatments are improved.
Future research should explore how NRT should best be
promoted in dairies to make it a viable product
line.7 It would also be important to assess the
extent that tobacco companies can influence retailers’ practices around
the sale of NRT.8
Krystel Fernandes
Summer student Natalie Walker
Programme Leader, Addictions Chris Bullen
Director Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Population Health,
University of Auckland, Auckland
Acknowledgements: This work was
supported by a University of Auckland summer studentship to KF. (The study was
designed, conducted and analysed by the researchers independently of funders.)
The authors also thank the interviewed retailers for agreeing to participate in
this study; ASH (NZ) for assisting with the list of stores that did not display
or did not sell tobacco products; and the CTRU staff that helped support this
study and reviewed earlier drafts of this publication.
References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |