Awareness of cancer among adolescents: A study of nine focus groups in Aotearoa New Zealand.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: One third of cancers are potentially preventable by modifying key risk factors that arise during adolescence. To help inform prevention efforts, we investigated adolescents' understanding of cancer risk factors, symptoms and signs and barriers to help-seeking. METHODS: Nine focus groups were conducted with purposefully sampled, binary-gendered friendship groups of 12 to 17-year-olds. Interviews were analysed using a qualitative descriptive method based on the topic schedule, transcripts and field notes. RESULTS: Behavioural, genetic and environmental factors were commonly explored as risk factors. Most cancer symptoms identified focused on physical indicators, such as lumps and skin appearance. Facilitators and barriers to good health choices involved both external and internal factors: education, affordability, attitudes and the social environment. Most participants indicated they would talk to trusted friends and family members about health issues, but only when the condition became 'serious'. The most common source of health information was the internet. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents have a good understanding of behavioural risk factors, but poor knowledge of some key cancer symptoms. A support system was recognised to be a substantive factor in dealing with health issues, as were youth-focused health services. Understanding of the preventability of many cancers was not widespread with participants. SO WHAT?: The results emphasise a requirement for appropriate, affordable and accessible youth-focused health services. There is a need for age- and culturally appropriate interventions that improve knowledge of cancer symptoms. Immunisation against the viruses implicated in cervical cancer is one example of a clinical cancer prevention intervention in adolescence.

National Sporting Organisation policies: A health promotion opportunity?

ISSUE ADDRESSED: The objective was to identify whether National Sporting Organisations (NSOs) have policy documentation on healthy behaviours (smokefree, sun-protection, healthy food/beverages and alcohol) and, for organisations with such documentation, whether this was in-line with current scientific evidence of past best practice in cancer prevention. METHODS: This cross-sectional policy analysis study was performed September to December 2018 in Aotearoa/New Zealand. A content analysis was undertaken using NSO policy documents matched against a framework of key indicators for best practice within health behaviours of interest. Data analysis of the policy process was undertaken through key informant telephone interviews with NSO staff using semi-structured qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Of 96 NSOs, nearly half (49%) mentioned smokefree at least once in one of their policy documents, and 47% had an alcohol policy, although in both instances the policies lacked comprehensiveness. Two NSOs had a reasonably comprehensive sun protection policy. Seventeen had at least one specific nutrition policy/guideline. The contents of the latter were primarily related to short-term athletic performance rather than non-communicable disease prevention, specifically promoting hydration during sports participation, and food and nutrition to support sporting performance. Two NSOs had policies relating to the promotion of healthy food/nutrition more widely. For some NSOs, the lack of health-related policies was not a conscious choice but just not considered previously. Other NSOs reported they lacked resources or had other priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study clearly demonstrates that many NSOs lack adequate health-related policies, this is not necessarily a conscious choice, but the result of a lack of resources, other priorities, or just that they had not considered developing policies in these areas. A number expressed support for these types of policies although it was apparent that some, particularly smaller NSOs, would require assistance in policy template development. It seems probable that the development of health-related policies will only occur if partner agencies become involved.

Could We See the End of Tobacco Being Sold in Bars and Pubs in New Zealand?

BACKGROUND: Disallowing the sale of tobacco wherever alcohol is consumed is one policy option to help achieve Smokefree 2025. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of selling tobacco in New Zealand (NZ) on-license premises and explore attitudes toward the sale of tobacco. METHODS: A sample of managers of on-license premises were asked by telephone about the importance of tobacco to their business, advantages and disadvantages of selling tobacco, and the impact of not being able to sell tobacco in the future. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between on-license characteristics and selling status and importance scores, respectively. RESULTS: Of on-license premises, 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3, 8.0) sold tobacco; 17.4% (95% CI: 14.0, 21.4) of hotels, 17.5% (95% CI: 13.8, 21.9) of taverns, and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.6, 3.2) of restaurants. Both retailer type and population density were associated with selling status. On-licenses were more likely to rate tobacco as "unimportant" (51.7%) to their business than "important" (30.0%), although premises where the closest tobacco retailer was at least 1 km away were associated with a higher score. Similar proportions of businesses were opposed to (45.7%) and supported (47.2%) the policy of removing all tobacco sales from on-license premises. CONCLUSION: Few on-license premises in NZ sell tobacco. Most retailers would support transitioning out of selling tobacco before the 2025 Smokefree goal, and they believed ending sales of tobacco would not negatively affect their business. However, businesses and customers in rural areas may be more affected than others. IMPLICATIONS: Many countries have tobacco-free goals, with several still developing their endgame strategies to achieve these goals. This study provides NZ and other jurisdictions with evidence useful in the development of such strategies. Having on-license alcohol retailers transition out of sales of tobacco would contribute to a reduction in tobacco availability. Moreover, the results of this study suggest that, in part due to declining tobacco sales and increased thefts, such a policy is likely to have the support of retailers. Policy developers should note, however, the potential for different impacts where the distance to the closest tobacco retailer is over 1 km or in rural areas.

Is the tobacco 'footfall' argument justified for tobacco purchases in New Zealand convenience stores?

INTRODUCTION: New Zealand's Smokefree 2025 goal aims to greatly decrease the availability of tobacco. One option is to cease the sale of tobacco from convenience stores. However, tobacco companies and retail trade associations oppose this move and have argued that customers who purchase tobacco drive footfall and spend more than non-tobacco customers. The aim of this study is to test the validity of industry claims about the importance of tobacco to convenience stores. METHODS: During November and December 2019, immediate postpurchase surveys were undertaken with customers on exit from a random sample of 100 convenience stores in two New Zealand cities. We estimated the mean number of items purchased, including tobacco and non-tobacco items, and mean expenditure on non-tobacco items. RESULTS: Of the 3399 transactions recorded, 13.8% included tobacco, of which 8.3% comprised tobacco only and 5.5% included tobacco and non-tobacco items. The mean number of transactions containing both tobacco and non-tobacco items was 1.98, and 1.87 for those containing non-tobacco items only. Customers who purchased tobacco and non-tobacco items spent on average NZ$6.99 on non-tobacco items, whereas customers who purchased non-tobacco items only, spent on average NZ$5.07. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support claims that tobacco drives one-quarter of footfall into stores or that customers who purchase tobacco spend almost twice as much as non-tobacco customers. Combined purchases of tobacco and non-tobacco items constituted 5.5% of transactions; the impact on a store's profitability of removing tobacco sales is unknown and could be the focus of future research.