Cheaper tobacco product prices at US Air Force Bases compared with surrounding community areas, 2019.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2017, the US Department of Defense (DoD) implemented a policy requiring all military stores to set tobacco prices equal to 'prevailing prices' in the 'local community' adjusted for state and local taxes. We compared tobacco product prices in a sample of retailers located on five Air Force Bases (AFBs) in Texas and Mississippi with those sold in nearby off-base stores. METHODS: We constructed a list of on-base and off-base tobacco retailers. Off-base retailers included stores that were located within a 1.5-mile road network service area from main AFB gates. Between July and September 2019, a trained auditor visited 23 on-base and 50 off-base retailers to confirm tobacco product sales, and documented the price of cigarettes and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco. For each area, the median price for each product, as well as the difference in median prices by on-base versus off-base status, was calculated. RESULTS: The median price of cigarettes and smokeless products was cheaper at on-base retailers. All products were cheaper at on-base stores in Fort Sam Houston and Lackland AFB. Similarly, all products were cheaper in on-base stores at Keesler AFB, with the exception of Marlboro Red packs ($0.22 more), and at Sheppard AFB with the exception of cheapest cigarette cartons ($6.26 more). CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of the new DoD policy, tobacco products are cheaper in on-base retailers compared with off-base retailers. Refining of the definitions used and improved compliance with the new DoD policy are needed.

Availability, price and promotions for cigarettes and non-cigarette tobacco products: an observational comparison of US Air Force bases with nearby tobacco retailers, 2016.

INTRODUCTION: Active duty military personnel have higher cigarette and smokeless tobacco use rates than civilian populations. Although US Airmen (called Airmen regardless of gender or rank) are required to be tobacco-free during initial training, many resume use once this period ends, perhaps as a result of easy access to cheap tobacco products. METHODS: Between July and September 2016, we collected tobacco product, price and promotion information by visiting on-base (n=28) and off-base (n=80) tobacco retailers near the eight technical training bases where approximately 99% of Airmen attend training. We conducted mixed linear effects models to examine on-base versus off-base differences. RESULTS: Cigarette packs were 11%-12% cheaper at on-base retailers compared with off-base retailers. Newport Menthol and Marlboro Red cigarette packs were $0.87 and $0.80 lower on-base (p<0.001) while the cheapest pack available was $0.54 lower on-base (p<0.01). Copenhagen smokeless tobacco was also significantly cheaper on-base (B=-0.65, p<0.01). Interior price promotions were more common on-base. CONCLUSIONS: Retail stores located on Air Force bases sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products at prices well below those in nearby off-base retailers: the vast majority of these retailers feature interior price promotions for these products. Federal policies regulating prices of on-base tobacco sales, if implemented more effectively, have the potential to protect the health of Airmen by helping them remain tobacco-free after technical training.

Motivations, barriers, and communication recommendations for promoting face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Survey findings from a diverse sample.

State and local health departments have been tasked with promoting the use of face coverings to decrease the spread of COVID-19 in their respective communities. However, little is known about motivations and barriers to wearing face coverings in the context of COVID-19 prevention, particularly among communities of color who are at an increased risk of serious illness from the disease. The purpose of this study was to identify common motivations and barriers to face covering use, as well as explore perceptions of messages encouraging the use of face coverings among a racially and ethnically diverse sample. A survey was distributed electronically to North Carolina (NC) residents through NC Department of Health and Human Services listservs in July 2020. Participants self-categorized as Latino/a (33.5%), Black (39.1%), or white or another race (27.5%). The most commonly endorsed motivations for wearing face coverings were to avoid spreading COVID-19 (77%), as well as to protect people who are vulnerable (76%) and one's community (72%). Being uncomfortable (40%) was the most commonly endorsed barrier. Messages that included a clear request (ex. please wear a face covering) and a direct benefit (ex. keep community safe) were more commonly endorsed than those that did not. Commonly endorsed motivations, behaviors, and messages differed by race and ethnicity. Increased attention to message content, message structure, and access to information and resources may aid local officials in increasing consistent use of face coverings.

Motivations and Barriers for the Use of Face Coverings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Messaging Insights from Focus Groups.

Widespread use of face coverings is a key public health strategy to prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, few studies have examined why Americans use or do not use face coverings, and little is known about the most effective messaging strategies. This study explored perceptions of face coverings, including motivations and barriers for use, and examined reactions to messaging promoting the use of face coverings. Six virtual focus groups were conducted with 34 North Carolina residents in July 2020. Participants reported high compliance with face covering recommendations but often did not wear them around family, friends, and colleagues. The most prevalent motivation for the use of face coverings was to protect or respect other people, including high-risk populations and individuals. Other motivators were self-protection, responsibility, desire for control, requirements, and expert advice. Barriers included physical and social discomfort, confusion or misinformation, low perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and perceptions of identity and autonomy. Even among individuals who frequently wear face coverings, there are opportunities to improve compliance. Messaging should highlight how face coverings protect the wearer and others around them, normalize the use of face coverings in social settings, and emphasize requirements. Positive messages that focus on unity, personal experiences and the rationale for face coverings are recommended.