The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cigarette and E-Cigarette Retail Marketing on and Near California Tribal Lands
Open accessAbstract
Introduction. Retail settings are major channels for the tobacco industry to market commercial tobacco products. However, few studies have examined marketing strategies on Tribal lands. The resulting evidence is important, especially given that American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth and adults have the highest smoking prevalence of any racial/ethnic group in the United States. In this study, we examined cigarette, e-cigarette, and vape/vaporizer availability, advertising, and price-reducing promotions in retail settings on and within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands in California. Method. Trained AI/AN community health representatives (n = 8) conducted store observations (n = 96) using a checklist adapted from the Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings observation tool. Chi-square analyses were performed to look for potential differences in availability, exterior advertising, and price promotions for cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and vapes between stores. Results. All stores sold cigarettes and over 95% sold menthol cigarettes. Nearly 25% of stores on Tribal lands were located inside a casino, and 40.4% of stores on Tribal lands offered a Tribal member discount. Stores within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands sold significantly (p < .01) more e-cigarettes (69.8%), including flavored e-cigarettes (53.4%), compared to stores on Tribal lands (37.7% and 28.3%, respectively). Price promotions for cigarettes were significantly (p < .01) more common in stores located within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands (46.5%) than stores on Tribal lands (22.6%). Discussion. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use store observations to examine cigarette and e-cigarette availability, advertising, and price promotions in retail settings on and near California Tribal lands. We recommend future studies build on our initial efforts to take an AI/AN Tribal community-engaged approach in assessing and documenting tobacco marketing practices on and near Tribal lands. Tribal governments can consider tobacco policies to help reduce smoking disparities and advance health equity for their communities.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study used community health representatives to observe tobacco retail marketing at 96 stores on and within 1 mile of California Tribal lands. It found widespread cigarette availability and higher e-cigarette availability and cigarette price promotions in stores near Tribal lands, while Tribal member discounts were exclusive to stores on Tribal lands.
Key findings
- All stores sold cigarettes and over 95% sold menthol cigarettes; 52.1% sold e-cigarettes, 39.5% sold flavored e-cigarettes, 27% sold vape pens/vaporizers, and 25% sold flavored vape pens/vaporizers.
- Stores within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands sold significantly more e-cigarettes (69.8%) and flavored e-cigarettes (53.4%) than stores on Tribal lands (37.7% and 28.3%, respectively; p < .01).
- Cigarette price promotions were significantly more common in stores within a 1-mile radius (46.5%) than on Tribal lands (22.6%; p < .01).
- Nearly 25% of stores on Tribal lands were located inside a casino, and Tribal member discounts were more common at retailers on Tribal lands (39.6%) than at retailers within 1 mile (0%).
Methods
- Trained AI/AN community health representatives (n = 8) conducted store observations (n = 96) using the STARS-TCT checklist adapted from STARS; data were collected October 30, 2015–February 4, 2017, on and within a 1-mile radius of California Tribal lands.
- Observations coded availability, exterior advertising, and price promotions for cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and vape pens/vaporizers; chi-square analyses tested differences between on- and near-Tribal-land stores; intercoder reliability kappa values exceeded 0.70 among 14 retailers.
- Retailers were identified from California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Google Maps, and Esri Dun & Bradstreet data; recruitment required Tribal council/community health board permissions and Community Advisory Board guidance.
Limitations
- The paper states findings are limited to a convenience sample of retailers on or near California Tribal lands and are not generalizable to all U.S. Tribal lands due to geographic and Tribal diversity.
- The paper notes data collection took approximately 16 months (October 2015–February 2017) versus approximately 10 months for similarly sized samples in other racial/ethnic minority communities, reflecting remote geography and permission/recruitment challenges.
- Evident from the text/table: some subgroup analyses had cells with fewer than 5 and were noted as not statistically valid; the cross-sectional observational design cannot establish causal effects of marketing on tobacco use.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own result · 6 Sources not found · 5 Own interpretation · 3 Check pending · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“52.1% sold e-cigarettes”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 25% of stores on Tribal lands were located inside a casino”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“27% sold vape pens/vaporizers”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“39.5% sold flavored e-cigarettes”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tribal member discounts for tobacco products were more common at retailers on Tribal lands (39.6%) than at retailers within 1 mile of Tribal lands (0%).”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“25% sold flavored vape pens/vaporizers”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“95.8% sold menthol cigarettes”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly all (99%) of the retailers sold cigarettes”
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“exterior advertising did not differ significantly across stores on and off Tribal lands.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cigarette promotions were the most common type of promotion overall (33.3% of all stores).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common type of exterior advertising was for cigarettes (42% of all stores), followed by menthol cigarettes (22% of all stores) and ecigarettes/vapes (13%)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, limited research has explored tobacco retail environments on and near U.S. Tribal lands, including California Tribal lands.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“California's tobacco tax is higher than the national average, and tobacco taxes have been found to reduce tobacco use (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Tribal communities may or may not have adopted the Tobacco 21 Law or other California state policies, as they have the authority to make their own age requirements and tobacco regulations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tribal lands are unique, because they are designated as sovereign nations (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8.). Tribes are required to follow Federal regulations but not state regulations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“An example of an effective method to reduce youth tobacco use (Astor et al., 2019) is enforcing a tobacco retail license, which allows the government to regulate and monitor retailers that sell tobacco.”
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites Astor et al., 2019 source
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 2017, the tobacco industry spent $8.64 billion on cigarette advertising and promotional activities in U.S. retail settings (U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Store observations were conducted using the Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (STARS) Supplement for Tribal Commercial Tobacco (STARS-TCT), an adapted version of the STARS (Henriksen et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites Henriksen et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All study protocols, instruments, and consent forms were submitted and approved by the University of Southern California Health Sciences Campus Institutional Review Board.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As of 2019, there are 64 casinos operated by 62 tribes in California, and according to the California Clean Air Project, only 2 of the 64 Tribal casinos have comprehensive smoke-free air laws ('Tribal Casinos in California,' 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 'Tribal Casinos in California,' 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although a majority of casinos on California Tribal lands have smoke-free areas, prosmoking norms are likely to increase combustible tobacco product use and intensify disparities among a population that already suffers from a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality (Jamal et al., 2018; 'Tribal Casinos in California,' 2018).”
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites Jamal et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites 'Tribal Casinos in California,' 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Tobacco is a sacred herb in many AI/AN cultures.
“This is a complex issue, because tobacco is a sacred herb in many AI/AN cultures.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract · p. 1
“Stores within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands sold significantly (p < .01) more ecigarettes (69.8%), including flavored e-cigarettes (53.4%), compared to stores on Tribal lands (37.7% and 28.3%, respectively).”
§ Author Manuscript · p. 13
“b Association between flavored e-cigarettes available for sale on Tribal lands and within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands was statistically significant, χ 2 (1) = 6.3; p = .012”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract · p. 1
“Price promotions for cigarettes were significantly (p < .01) more common in stores located within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands (46.5%) than stores on Tribal lands (22.6%).”
§ Author Manuscript · p. 13
“c Association between cigarette price promotion/discount on Tribal lands and within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands was statistically significant, χ 2 (1) = 6.1; p = .014”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract · p. 1
“40.4% of stores on Tribal lands offered a Tribal member discount.”
§ Statistical Analysis · p. 5
“Tribal member discounts for tobacco products were more common at retailers on Tribal lands (39.6%) than at retailers within 1 mile of Tribal lands (0%).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract · p. 1
“All stores sold cigarettes and over 95% sold menthol cigarettes.”
§ Statistical Analysis · p. 5
“Nearly all (99%) of the retailers sold cigarettes”
Citations
Cites
The Health Consequences of Smoking -- 50 Years of progress: A Report of the Surgeon General
General, U. S. S. (2014) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e510072014-001 · Cited by 3,370
Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion
Stokols, D. (1996) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282 · Cited by 2,763
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2016
Jamal, A., Phillips, E., Gentzke, A. S., Homa, D. M., Babb, S. D., King, B. A., & Neff, L. J. (2018) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6702a1 · Cited by 737
Current cigarette smoking among adults — United States, 2005–2014
Jamal, A., Homa, D. M., O’Connor, E., Babb, S. D., Caraballo, R. S., Singh, T., Hu, S. S., & King, B. A. (2015) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6444a2 · Cited by 528
The impact of tobacco promotion at the point of sale: A systematic review
Paynter, J., & Edwards, R. (2009) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntn002 · Cited by 321
Aligning the Goals of Community-Engaged Research
Michener, L., Cook, J., Ahmed, S. M., Yonas, M., Coyne-Beasley, T. D., & Aguilar‐Gaxiola, S. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182441680 · Cited by 243
Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide: a geographic analysis
Rodriguez, D., Carlos, H. A., Adachi‐Mejia, A. M., Berke, E. M., & Sargent, J. D. (2012) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050120 · Cited by 157
Ribisl, K. M., D’Angelo, H., Feld, A. L., Schleicher, N. C., Golden, S. D., Luke, D. A., & Henriksen, L. (2017) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.010 · Cited by 124
Henriksen, L., Schleicher, N. C., Dauphinee, A. L., & Fortmann, S. P. (2011) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr122 · Cited by 117
Giovenco, D. P., Spillane, T. E., & Merizier, J. M. (2018) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/nty244 · Cited by 74
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The commercial determinants of Indigenous health and well-being: a systematic scoping review
Crocetti, A., Cubillo, B., Lock, M., Walker, T., Hill, K., Mitchell, F., Paradies, Y., Backholer, K., & Browne, J. (2022) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010366 · Cited by 46
Perceiving E-Cigarettes as Safe and Safer Alternative to Cigarettes Among Young Adults
Ceasar, R. C., Braymiller, J. L., Kechter, A., Simpson, K. A., Schiff, S. J., Yamaguchi, N., & Barrington‐Trimis, J. L. (2024) · Substance Use & Addiction Journal · doi:10.1177/29767342231218533 · Cited by 24
Nicotine use among reservation-area American Indian adolescents compared with a national sample
Crabtree, M. A., Stanley, L. R., Miech, R. A., & Swaim, R. C. (2024) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111124 · Cited by 1
Kornacki, C., Rodriguez, J., Rodriguez, J., Calac, A. J., Calac, D. J., Lee, J. P., Moore, R. S., Brucks, L., Jacques, I., Yang, M., et al. (2024) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntae110 · Cited by 1
Sahlemariam, B. (2020) · Dominican Scholar (Dominican University of California) · doi:10.33015/dominican.edu/2020.nurs.st.06
Metadata
- Authors
- Begay, C., Soto, C., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Barahona, R., Rodriguez, Y. L., Unger, J. B., & Smiley, S. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Smiley, Sabrina L.
- Venue
- Health Promotion Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1_suppl
- Pages
- 18S-26S
- ISSN
- 1524-8399 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6372
- PMC
- PMC7521133
- OpenAlex
- W2999543343
- Semantic Scholar
- 0d8144612cc40986da95ef1dcb920831527518d9
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Promotion Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (P50CA180905, U54CA180905, P30CA014089)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Keywords
- electronic cigarettes, cigarette availability, tobacco advertising, price promotions, tribal areas, casino, menthol cigarettes, flavored e-cigarettes, smoking disparities, health equity, California
- MeSH terms
- Advertising, California, Commerce, Ethnicity, Humans, Indians, North American, United States, Prevalence, Marketing, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
