Ex ante evaluation of the impact of tobacco control policy measures aimed at the point of sale in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The Netherlands aims to implement stricter tobacco control policies targeting the retail environment. This paper is an ex ante policy evaluation of the potential impact of the current tobacco display and advertising ban as well as future tobacco sales bans on tobacco outlet visibility and availability. METHODS: Between September 2019 and June 2020, all potential tobacco retailers in four Dutch cities (Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Haarlem and Zwolle) were visited and mapped using Global Positioning System. For each retailer selling tobacco, we completed a checklist on the visibility of tobacco products and advertising. Expected reductions in tobacco outlet visibility and availability were calculated per policy measure in absolute numbers (percentage or percentage point decrease) as well as density and proximity. RESULTS: Out of 870 tobacco outlets, 690 were identified with visible tobacco products/advertising. The display ban in supermarkets and small outlets (respectively) is expected to decrease the number (-15; -42 percentage points), outlet density per 10 000 capita (-0.9; -2.6) and proximity in metres (+27 m; +400 m) of outlets with visible products/advertising. The upcoming bans on vending machines and sales in supermarkets are expected to decrease the number (-12%; -31%), density (-0.7; -1.9) and proximity (+12 m; +68 m) of tobacco outlets. Further changes in the number, density and proximity (respectively) of tobacco outlets may be achieved with future sales bans in petrol stations (-7%; -0.4; +60 m) and particularly with a ban on sales in small outlets (-43%; -2.7; +970 m). CONCLUSION: A display ban and a sales ban in small outlets will contribute most to reducing tobacco outlet visibility and availability, assuming that no market shift towards other tobacco outlets will take place.

Socioeconomic differences in tobacco outlet presence, density, and proximity in four cities in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies found that tobacco outlets were unevenly distributed by area socioeconomic status (SES). However, evidence from continental Europe is limited. This study aims to assess differences in tobacco outlet presence, density and proximity by area SES in the Netherlands. METHODS: All tobacco outlets in four Dutch cities (Amsterdam, and medium-sized cities Eindhoven, Haarlem, and Zwolle) were mapped between September 2019 and June 2020. We estimated associations between average property value of neighbourhoods (as an indicator of SES, grouped into quintiles) and (1) tobacco outlet presence in the neighbourhood (yes/no), (2) density (per km2), and (3) proximity to the closest outlet (in meters), using logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: 46% of neighbourhoods contained at least one tobacco outlet. Tobacco outlets were mostly situated in city centres, but the distribution of tobacco outlets varied per city due to differences in urban structures and functions. In the medium-sized cities, each quintile higher neighbourhood-SES was associated with lower tobacco outlet presence (OR:0.71, 95%CI:0.59;0.85), lower density (B:-1.20 outlets/km2, 95%CI:-2.20;-0.20) and less proximity (B:40.2 m, 95%CI 36.58;43.83). Associations were the other way around for Amsterdam (OR:1.22, 95%CI:1.05;1.40, B:3.50, 95%CI:0.81;6.20, and B:-18.45, 95%CI:-20.41;-16.49, respectively). Results were similar for most types of tobacco outlets. CONCLUSION: In medium-sized cities in the Netherlands, tobacco outlets were more often located in low-SES neighbourhoods than high-SES. Amsterdam presented a reverse pattern, possibly due to its unique urban structure. We discuss how licensing might contribute to reducing tobacco outlets in low-SES neighbourhoods.