RESEARCH PAPER
Exposure to outdoor cigarette advertisements and cigarette retailers near Indonesian schools: Density, proximity, and students’ self-report of exposure
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Epidemiology,
Biostatistics, Population Studies
and Health Promotion, Faculty
of Public Health, Universitas
Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Research Group for Health
and Well-being of Women and
Children, Universitas Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia
3
Research Group Tobacco
Control, Universitas Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia
4
Faculty of Public Health,
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya,
Indonesia
5
Faculty of Health, Medicine
and Life Sciences, Universitas
Airlangga, Banyuwangi, Indonesia
6
Department of Nutrition,
Faculty of Public Health,
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya,
Indonesia
Submission date: 2024-06-26
Final revision date: 2024-10-15
Acceptance date: 2024-10-18
Publication date: 2024-11-21
Corresponding author
Erni Astutik
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Population Studies, and Health Promotion, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2024;10(November):58
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Adolescents are vulnerable to tobacco advertising, promotion, and
sponsorships (TAPS). The presence of TAPS, specifically outdoor cigarette
advertisements (OCA) and cigarette retailers (CR), impacts adolescent smoking
behavior. This study examined the presence of OCA and CR near Indonesian
schools and students’ report of their TAPs exposure.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study in the three diverse districts
(Serang, Banyuwangi, and East Lombok) and a city district (Padang), Indonesia
on September 2022–April 2023. In each district, we selected the three subdistricts
with the most schools and the highest population density. Enumerators mapped all
outdoor OCA and CR using Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. In selected
schools within the study areas, we surveyed 6715 students about their TAPs
exposure using face-to-face interviews. Students were selected using multistage
cluster sampling. Data were analyzed descriptively using STATA 14.2.
Results:
Of the 21460 retailers identified in the subdistricts, 30.4% were CR. The
proportion of CR varied by district, between 24.8% and 40.7%. East Lombok
had the highest percentage. Additionally, Banyuwangi had the highest density of
CR. There were 13660 OCA points (district range 1918–6472). Around schools,
banners were the most common OCA form (62.1%). Posters were second (32.8%).
The retailers who sold the most cigarettes in the four districts were in kiosks. The
density of CR and OCA per km2 increased as the distance from schools decreased.
Students’ self-reported exposure to tobacco products was higher from OCA and
CR than from the internet, television, and magazines/newspapers.
Conclusions:
OCA and CR are ubiquitous around schools. The Indonesian government
should assess OCA and CR regulations and limit OCA and CR close to schools.
INTRODUCTION
Globally, tobacco usage is the largest preventable cause of mortality and disability1. In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that tobacco use, primarily smoking, led to 4.9 million premature deaths per year1. This increased to 7.1 million in 2016. Assuming that present cigarette consumption rates remain stable, that figure will reach eight million by 20302. The regions with the most smokers are South-East Asia Region (SEARO) and the Western Pacific, contributing about 6.4 million and 4.7 million smokers, respectively.
Indonesia is a major contributor to SEARO’s tobacco pandemic3. Within Indonesia, the smoking prevalence among youth aged 13–18 years is 38.3%. This is substantially higher than the rates seen in other SEARO countries, such as Malaysia (20.6%), Thailand (17.2%), and Myanmar (17%)3. Smoking prevalence among Indonesian youth aged 10–18 years grew from 7.2% in 2013 to 9.1% in 20184.
Tobacco companies invest millions of dollars annually to market cigarettes through television, radio, cinema, newspapers, magazines, point of sale, outdoor displays, and the internet5. Indonesia is among the few ASEAN countries that have not completely prohibited tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorships (TAPS)6. Several studies have found a correlation between TAPS and youth smoking behavior7,8. Empirical evidence indicates that advertising and promotion by tobacco companies significantly affect adolescents to initiate tobacco use. Adolescents exposed to tobacco promotion frequently perceive the advertisements as attractive. Tobacco advertisements render smoking attractive, potentially heightening adolescents’ inclination to smoke9. WHO considers banning TAPS to be a necessary part of a global movement to overcome the tobacco epidemic1.
Studies conducted in Indonesia have documented outdoor cigarette advertisements (OCA) near public places, such as schools, health facilities, and religious sites10-12, the most recent was in 20208. Significant correlations existed between teenage smoking prevalence and the density and proximity of outdoor tobacco advertising in Indonesia, although no such relationships were seen among adults. This underscores the necessity of implementing a ban on outdoor tobacco advertising, particularly in proximity to schools, in Indonesia and elsewhere. Other assessments of TAPS and cigarette retailers (CR) around schools in Indonesia are few13. This study provides a recent estimate of the current state of tobacco advertisements and retailers around selected schools in Indonesia. Specifically, it describes the density and proximity of OCA and CR near Indonesian schools and summarizes co-located students’ self-reported OCA exposure.
METHODS
Study design
Our study was cross-sectional, conducted between September 2022 and April 2023 in three selected districts (Serang, Banyuwangi, and East Lombok) and a city district (Padang). These districts all have some form of smoke-free area regulations. Serang and East Lombok have loose tobacco control policies. Padang and Banyuwangi have tight tobacco control policies. Specific local regulations ban tobacco advertisements14.
Student population and sample
Our student survey sample was selected using multistage cluster sampling. First, within each of the four districts, we selected the three subdistricts with the highest number of schools and greatest population density. The selected subdistricts were Padang Barat, Padang Timur, and dan Koto Tangah (in Padang city); Cikande, Kramatwatu, and Kragilan (in Serang district); Muncar, Genteng, and Banyuwangi (in Banyuwangi district); and Aikmel, Pringgabaya, and Selong (in East Lombok district). Then, we identified all junior and high schools in these subdistricts. Next, we selected schools using proportional random sampling. The total number of schools in Padang, Serang, Banyuwangi, and East Lombok was 110, 108, 117, and 171, respectively. After selecting schools, we randomly selected two classes (each grade level at both junior and senior high school) in each school. All students in the selected classes were interviewed. Interviews were conducted in Bahasa. After missing data were excluded, 6715 students were interviewed.
Cigarette retailers, outdoor cigarette advertisements, and survey data collection
We identified all cigarette retailers and outdoor cigarette advertisements in the study areas. Global Positioning System (GPS) devices were used to map schools, OCA, and CR locations, and Google Maps was used to identify and validate area boundaries. We recruited 37 local enumerators for the various districts and cities. A project researcher trained enumerators. Enumerators walked and rode motorcycles to collect the needed GPS data.
The enumerators also conducted the student surveys. Surveys were conducted in the schools, and parental permission was obtained before gathering survey data.
Data were collected using KoboToolBox15. Field coordinators and supervisors’ quality assured the data. The field coordinator checked the enumerators’ daily data collection count and reported to the supervisor. The supervisor verified the number of data entries in the database system. To ensure accuracy and validity, the quality control team reviewed a 10% random sample of the OCA and CR data collected by the enumerators, and reinterviewed 10% of each enumerator’s students.
Variables
For the district OCA and CR survey, variables compiled included the total number of CR and OCA and their types. OCA types were posters, banners, billboards, powerwalls, stickers, store name boards, and others. CR types included stores, kiosks, street retailers, mini markets, supermarkets, and others.
We measured OCA and CR school proximity, as well as calculated OCA and CR density. We measured OCA proximity as the closest OCA to the school in meters. OCA density was the total number of OCA in km2 within three radii: 0–100 m, 0–300 m, and 0–500 m. CR proximity was measured as the closest CR to the school in meters. CR density was the total number of CR within the three radii in km2.
The student survey included five self-reported student exposures to tobacco products (Supplementary file). We assessed exposure to tobacco products based on four types of exposure, old media (television, newspaper, or magazine), new media (internet), OCA, and CR.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed descriptively using STATA 14.2. Descriptive analysis was employed to examine the presence of OCA and CR near schools and students’ reports of their TAPs exposure.
RESULTS
Cigarette retailers
We identified 21460 retailers. Of these, 30.4% were CR. Across all locations, the proportion of CR varied between 24.8% and 40.7%. East Lombok had the highest proportion of CR (40.7%). Banyuwangi had the highest density, 9.96 per km2. Based on the number of children and adolescents, Banyuwangi also had the highest density at 2.6 per 1000 adolescents. Among the four study areas, kiosks were the most common type of retailer (Table 1).
Table 1
Distribution of the number of schools and cigarette retailers and outdoor cigarette advertisement characteristics, by district, September 2022 to April 2023, Indonesia
Characteristics | Padang | Banyuwangi | Serang | East Lombok |
---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
---|
Total number of schools | 110 | | 117 | | 108 | | 171 | |
Total population | 317812 | | 346431 | | 290990 | | 192857 | |
Area (km2) | 247.4 | | 258.5 | | 135.5 | | 242.9 | |
Cigarette retailers | | | | | | | | |
Total number of retailers | 2844 | | 9598 | | 5074 | | 3944 | |
Total number of CR | 1087 | 38.2 | 2574 | 26.8 | 1256 | 24.8 | 1606 | 40.7 |
CR per km2 | 4.4 | | 9.96 | | 9.3 | | 6.6 | |
CR per 1000 children and adolescents | 1.1 | | 2.6 | | 1.3 | | 1.6 | |
Cigarette retailers by type | 1087 | | 2574 | | 1256 | | 1606 | |
Stores | 209 | 19.2 | 525 | 20.4 | 373 | 29.7 | 161 | 10.0 |
Kiosks | 742 | 68.3 | 1865 | 72.5 | 802 | 63.9 | 1229 | 76.5 |
Street retailers | 81 | 7.5 | 52 | 2.0 | 1 | 0.1 | 73 | 4.6 |
Mini markets | 24 | 2.2 | 52 | 2.0 | 75 | 6.0 | 63 | 3.9 |
Supermarkets | 8 | 0.7 | 4 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
Other | 23 | 2.1 | 76 | 3.0 | 5 | 0.4 | 80 | 5.0 |
Outdoor cigarette advertisements | | | | | | | | |
Total number of OCA | 2014 | | 6472 | | 1918 | | 3256 | |
OCA per km2 | 8.1 | | 25.0 | | 14.2 | | 13.4 | |
OCA per 1000 children and adolescents | 2.0 | | 6.5 | | 1.9 | | 3.3 | |
Outdoor cigarette advertisements by type | 2014 | | 6472 | | 1918 | | 3256 | |
Poster | 595 | 29.5 | 2457 | 38.0 | 230 | 7.1 | 1086 | 33.4 |
Banner | 1264 | 62.8 | 3576 | 55.3 | 1544 | 47.4 | 1871 | 57.5 |
Billboard | 1 | 0.1 | 24 | 0.4 | 64 | 2.0 | 31 | 1.0 |
Powerwall | 15 | 0.7 | 33 | 0.5 | 5 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.1 |
Sticker | 70 | 3.5 | 246 | 3.8 | 26 | 0.8 | 174 | 5.3 |
Store name board | 8 | 0.4 | 31 | 0.5 | 37 | 1.1 | 61 | 1.9 |
Other | 61 | 3.0 | 105 | 1.6 | 12 | 0.4 | 29 | 0.9 |
Outdoor cigarette advertisements
OCA were observed at 13660 points (range per district: 1918–4472). Of the OCA types, banners were the most common around schools (62.1%). Posters were second (32.8%). Padang had the highest percentage of cigarette banners (62.8%.) Banyuwangi had the highest percentage of posters (38.0%) (Table 1).
In East Lombok, 60.2% of all schools had at least 1 cigarette retailer point within a 100 m radius. More than 90% of schools had at least one within a 0–300 m radius. This is only slightly better than in Banyuwangi, where 76.9% of schools had at least one within a 0–100 m radius, 98.4% of schools had at least one within a 0–300 m radius, and all schools had at least one within a 0–500 m radius. In Serang, the results were similar to Banyuwangi’s where 71.3% of schools had at least one within a 0–100 m radius, and more than 90% of schools had at least one within 0–300 m. Padang City was slightly better than the other three districts; half of the schools (51.8%) had at least 1 cigarette retailer point within a 0–100 m radius, 88.2% of schools had at least one within a 0–300 m radius, and 93.6% of schools had at least one within a 0–500 m radius (Table 2).
Table 2
Density of cigarette retailers and outdoor cigarette advertisements near schools by district, September 2022 to April 2023, Indonesia
Variables | Number of schools | 0–100 m | 0–300 m | 0–500 m |
---|
Schools with at least 1 CR or OCA | Percent with at least 1 CR or OCA | Mean number of CR or OCA | Mean density (per km2) | Schools with at least 1 CR or OCA | Percent with at least 1 CR or OCA | Mean number of CR or OCA | Mean Density (per km2) | Schools with at least 1 CR or OCA | Percent with at least 1 CR or OCA | Mean number of CR or OCA | Mean density (per km2) |
---|
Location of schools to cigarette retailers | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Overall | 506 | 327 | | | | 463 | | | | 483 | | | |
Padang | 110 | 57 | 51.8 | 1.0 | 33.4 | 97 | 88.2 | 9.5 | 33.7 | 103 | 93.6 | 23.6 | 29.8 |
Banyuwangi | 117 | 90 | 76.9 | 1.8 | 59.3 | 115 | 98.3 | 10.1 | 36.0 | 117 | 100.0 | 23.2 | 29.4 |
Serang | 108 | 77 | 71.3 | 2.1 | 67.8 | 97 | 90 | 8.2 | 29.4 | 99 | 91.7 | 16.2 | 20.5 |
East Lombok | 171 | 103 | 60.2 | 1.6 | 52.3 | 154 | 90.1 | 8.7 | 31.1 | 164 | 95.9 | 19.2 | 24.3 |
Location of schools to outdoor cigarette advertisements | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Overall | 506 | | | | | 461 | | | | 485 | | | |
Padang | 110 | 45 | 40.9 | 1.5 | 48.1 | 97 | 88.2 | 13.9 | 49.5 | 106 | 96.4 | 37.2 | 47.1 |
Banyuwangi | 117 | 83 | 70.9 | 4.3 | 137.6 | 114 | 97.4 | 22.1 | 78.9 | 117 | 100.0 | 49.1 | 62.1 |
Serang | 108 | 77 | 71.3 | 2.8 | 88.7 | 97 | 89.8 | 11.4 | 40.8 | 98 | 90.7 | 22.6 | 28.7 |
East Lombok | 171 | 108 | 63.2 | 3.0 | 97.5 | 153 | 89.5 | 17.9 | 63.9 | 164 | 95.9 | 40.0 | 50.6 |
In all study locations, the density of CR/km2 increased as the distance from schools decreased. The density from the study schools ranged from 20.5–29.8 CR/km2 within 0–500 m, 29.4–36.0 within 0–300 m, and 33.4–67.8 within 0–100 m. The increase in CR/km2 was higher in Banyuwangi and Serang, than in Padang and East Lombok (Table 2).
The OCA density pattern was the same as the CR density pattern, i.e. as the distance from the schools decreased, the OCA density also increased. At a radius of 0–100 m, 71.3% of the schools in Padang, 70.9% in Banyuwangi, and 63.2% in East Lombok had at least 1 outdoor cigarette advertisement. Serang was the one exception, where only 40.9% of schools had one. Within a radius of 0–300 m, more than 88% of all schools in the study locations had at least 1 outdoor cigarette advertisement. Within 0–500 m, more than 90% of the schools had at least one, and every school in Banyuwangi had at least one. The density pattern differed somewhat in Padang, where at a radius of 0–100 m, the OCA/km2 slightly decreased compared to the density at a radius of 0–300 m. Within the 0–100 m radius, the highest OCA/km2 was in Banyuwangi (137.6), followed by East Lombok (97.5), Serang (88.7), and Padang (48.1) (Table 2).
Students were more exposed to tobacco products through the internet (range per district: 18.6–66.0%) than through television (range per district: 20.6–38.3%), magazines, or newspapers (range per district: 0.8–7.6%). However, exposure to tobacco products from the internet was lower than that from OCA (range per district: 75.2–85.7%) and CR (range per district: 80.2–95.5%). The highest tobacco exposure the students reported was OCA and CR (Table 3).
Table 3
Distribution of students’ self-reported tobacco product exposure, September 2022 to April 2023, Indonesia (N=6715)
Variables | Responses | Padang | Banyuwangi | Serang | East Lombok |
---|
N=2095 | N=1833 | N=1376 | N=1411 |
---|
n | % | 95% CI | n | % | 95% CI | n | % | 95% CI | n | % | 95% CI |
---|
Old media | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Over the last 30 days, did you see anyone smoking on TV shows or movies? | No | 669 | 31.9 | 30.0–34.0 | 550 | 30.0 | 27.9–32.1 | 655 | 47.6 | 45.0–50.2 | 433 | 30.7 | 28.3–33.1 |
Yes | 792 | 37.8 | 35.8–39.9 | 465 | 25.4 | 23.4–27.4 | 283 | 20.6 | 18.5–22.8 | 541 | 38.3 | 35.8–40.9 |
I did not watch television or films | 634 | 30.3 | 28.3–32.3 | 818 | 44.6 | 42.4–46.9 | 438 | 31.8 | 29.4–34.3 | 437 | 31.0 | 28.6–33.4 |
Over the last 30 days, did you see any cigarette product advertisement in newspapers or magazines? | No | 261 | 12.5 | 11.1–13.9 | 323 | 17.6 | 15.9–19.4 | 347 | 25.2 | 23.0–27.6 | 144 | 10.2 | 8.7–11.9 |
Yes | 159 | 7.6 | 6.5–8.8 | 86 | 4.7 | 3.8–5.8 | 11 | 0.8 | 0.4–1.4 | 44 | 3.1 | 2.3–4.2 |
I did not see any newspapers or magazines | 1675 | 80.0 | 78.2–81.6 | 1424 | 77.7 | 75.7–79.5 | 1018 | 74.0 | 71.6–76.2 | 1223 | 86.7 | 84.8–88.4 |
New media | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Over the last 30 days did you see any cigarette product advertisement on the internet? | No | 665 | 31.7 | 29.8–33.8 | 887 | 48.4 | 46.1–50.7 | 881 | 64.0 | 61.5–66.5 | 760 | 53.9 | 51.3–56.5 |
Yes | 1381 | 66.0 | 63.9–67.9 | 860 | 46.9 | 44.6–49.2 | 256 | 18.6 | 16.6–20.8 | 479 | 34.0 | 31.5–36.5 |
I did not access the internet | 49 | 2.3 | 1.8–3.1 | 86 | 4.7 | 3.8–5.8 | 239 | 17.4 | 15.5–19.5 | 172 | 12.2 | 10.6–14.0 |
Outdoor cigarette advertisements | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Over the last 30 days, did you see any cigarette product advertisement on billboards? | No | 249 | 11.9 | 10.6–13.3 | 341 | 18.6 | 16.9–20.5 | 303 | 22.0 | 19.9–24.3 | 167 | 11.8 | 10.3–13.6 |
Yes | 1795 | 85.7 | 84.1–87.1 | 1451 | 79.2 | 77.2–81.0 | 1035 | 75.2 | 72.9–77.4 | 1193 | 84.6 | 82.6–86.3 |
I did not see any billboards | 51 | 2.4 | 1.9–3.2 | 41 | 2.2 | 1.7–3.0 | 38 | 2.8 | 2.0–3.8 | 51 | 3.6 | 2.8–4.7 |
Cigarette retailers | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Over the last 30 days, did you see any cigarette products in stalls/kiosks/shops/etc.)? | No | 226 | 10.8 | 9.5–12.1 | 169 | 9.2 | 8.0–10.6 | 262 | 19.0 | 17.1–21.2 | 159 | 11.3 | 9.7–13.0 |
Yes | 1850 | 88.3 | 86.9–89.6 | 1659 | 90.5 | 89.1–91.8 | 1103 | 80.2 | 78.0–82.2 | 1234 | 87.5 | 85.6–89.1 |
I did not visit any stalls/kiosks/shops/etc. | 19 | 0.9 | 0.6–1.4 | 5 | 0.3 | 0.1–0.7 | 11 | 0.8 | 0.4–1.4 | 18 | 1.3 | 0.8–2.0 |
DISCUSSION
General findings
Our study found that 30.4% of retailers were CR. The number of OCA observed was 13660 points. The density of CR and OCA per km2 increased as the distance from schools decreased. Students’ self-reported exposure to tobacco products showed that exposure from OCA and CR was higher than that from the internet, television, magazines, or newspapers. This means that the students were surrounded by various TAPS, which increases the possibility of initiating or maintaining smoking behavior. Tobacco advertising is a form of TAPS that is used by the cigarette industry to promote their product, enhance sales, and expand their youth market. They use both conventional and social media to do so. Therefore, if anti-TAPS policies do not include a comprehensive ban, the tobacco industry will find alternative means of promoting their products16.
Comparison with other studies and possible mechanisms
Our study found that 30.4% of retailers were CR. In all four districts, kiosks were the most common type of retailer. This resembles results in Bali, Indonesia, where 77.8% of CR were kiosks13. CR play a crucial role in increased access to tobacco products17. The presence of CR around schools may prompt children and adolescents to smoke and increase their perception of the availability of tobacco products13,18. In Western Australia, a ban on the display of tobacco products reduced smoking prevalence19. Many people, especially children and youth, are exposed to the presence of cigarette products, which makes them interested in buying the products20. The presence of CR around educational institutions was found to lead to a higher risk of tobacco-related problems in Thai youth21.
In our study, the density of CR per km2 increased with decreasing distance from schools. We also found that 52–77% of the schools in all districts examined had at least 1 cigarette retailer point within a 100 m radius. Similar results were found in Bali13, Banyuwangi22,23, as well as Depok24. The proportion in our study was higher than that found in Thailand and elsewhere in Indonesia25. In Depok, West Java, Indonesia, a 40% higher density of CR was observed in areas near educational facilities24. In Ontario, Canada, smoking behavior was found to be significantly influenced by access to tobacco products. A major contributing factor to youth smoking is the high density of CR around schools20. The high density we found probably increases youth smoking prevalence in Indonesia26. The higher density of CR around schools indicates that CR were allowed to display tobacco products near schools and undoubtedly these displays are part of the tobacco industry’s programs to enhance the sales of their tobacco product specifically targeted at youth27,28.
The total number of OCA observed was 13660 and in any one district ranged between 1918 and 6472. This means that the students were surrounded by various TAPS. A previous study in Semarang found 3453 OCA points29. In our study, banners were the most common form of OCA around schools. In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, banners were also the most commonly found type of OCA30. However, in Surabaya, Indonesia, billboards were the most frequent type encountered OCA11. Surabaya is the capital of East Java Province and is the second-largest metropolitan city in Indonesia. This metropolitan environment may explain the dominance of billboards.
Similar to our results for CR, we found that as the distance from the schools decreased, OCA density increased. Likewise, in Semarang, Indonesia, OCA density was higher near schools29. In addition, a study conducted by Sebayang et al.31 in Surabaya and Banyuwangi, Indonesia, found that the density of outdoor tobacco advertising increased as the distance to an educational facility used by children and adolescents decreased. Research among Thai youth identified a high risk for tobacco-related problems due to their exposure to tobacco product advertising near educational institutions25.
According to students’ self-reported exposure to tobacco products, exposure from OCA and CR was higher than exposure through the internet, television, magazines, or newspapers. These results differ from a 2017 Indonesian study which identified high TAPS exposure from the Instagram (29.6%). Among offline types of exposure to TAPS, OCA (54.4%) was the second-highest exposure following television (74%)8. This difference might be because our research was conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic, between September 2022 and March 2023. During the pandemic, the government imposed restrictions on activity and travel32,33. Thus, children and adolescents, bored from being at home, tended to increase their outdoor activities, which more frequently exposed them to tobacco products through OCA and CR.
Limitations
Our research does not represent all of Indonesia, due to differences in the geographical, social, and economic characteristics of the regions and because only four districts were studied. The sampling strategy used here involved selecting districts with high population densities and high school densities, which may contribute to a higher likelihood of OCA and CR in those areas. Additionally, the cross-sectional study design does not allow for the establishment of causal relationships between the variables studied. The use of self-reported information may introduce potential biases in this study. Further research is needed to examine broader and more representative areas in Indonesia.
Policy implications
This study demonstrated that TAPS-related policies in Indonesia remain weak. The implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 109 of 2012, Article 39, and Law No. 32 of 2002, Article 46, concerning broadcasting, needs to be strengthened to eliminate cigarette advertising and promotions in communities, especially near children and adolescents. The government should regulate tobacco access, particularly for vulnerable groups, including children and adolescents. Restricting the proximity of CR and OCA to school premises can reduce the exposure to tobacco products among children and adolescents25, and thus reduce the prevalence of smoking among adolescents and children. To strengthen these efforts, comprehensive tobacco control measures, including a prohibition of outdoor tobacco advertising, are necessary34,35.
CONCLUSIONS
In the surveyed areas in Indonesia, OCA and CR are ubiquitous around schools. Additionally, according to students’ self-reports, exposure to OCA and CR was greater than exposure from the internet, television, and magazines/newspapers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the CDC Foundation for providing funding
to conduct this research. We are also grateful to Robert B. Gerzoff for the
advice, support, and input on the manuscript.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for disclosure
of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
This study was conducted through a research partnership funded by
the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use through the CDC
Foundation with a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. The findings and
conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position of the CDC Foundation.
ETHICAL APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT
Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health,
Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia (Approval number: 90/EA/KEPK/2022;
Date: 20 May 2022). Participants’ parents/guardians provided informed
consent.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Raw data that supports the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
EA: conceptualization, study design, data analysis, data interpretation,
validation, data interpretation, and manuscript drafting. HM:
conceptualization, study design, data interpretation, and manuscript
drafting. KG and SKS: study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and
manuscript drafting. SRN and SM: data interpretation and manuscript
drafting. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES (35)
1.
World Health Organization. MPOWER: A Policy Package to Reverse the Tobacco Epidemic. World Health Organization; 2008. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://www.afro.who.int/sites...
2.
Drope J, Schluger NW, Cahn WZ, et al. The tobacco atlas. 6th ed. American Cancer Society and Vital Strategies; 2018. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://theunion.org/sites/def...
3.
Tan YL, Dorotheo U. The Tobacco Control Atlas: ASEAN Region. 5th ed. Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance; 2018. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://seatca.org/dmdocuments...
4.
Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Laporan Nasional Riskesdas 2018. Lembaga Penerbit Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan; 2019. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://repository.badankebija... Riskesdas 2018 Nasional.pdf
5.
2022 FTC Marketing Expenditure Reports Show the Tobacco Industry’s Continued Focus on the Retail Environment. Counter Tobacco. October 31, 2023. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://countertobacco.org/202...
6.
Astuti PAS. Policy incoherence and unwillingness of the Indonesian government to curb its alarming tobacco epidemic. Tob Control. 2023;32(4):405-406. doi:10.1136/tc-2023-058114
7.
Stubbs T. Commercial determinants of youth smoking in ASEAN countries: A narrative review of research investigating the influence of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. Tob Induc Dis. 2021;19:61. doi:10.18332/tid/139124
8.
Handayani S, Rachmani E, Saptorini KK, et al. Is Youth Smoking Related to the Density and Proximity of Outdoor Tobacco Advertising Near Schools? Evidence from Indonesia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2556. doi:10.3390/ijerph18052556
10.
Sebayang SK, Dewi DMSK, Lailiyah S, Ahsan A. Mixed-methods evaluation of a ban on tobacco advertising and promotion in Banyuwangi District, Indonesia. Tob Control. 2019;28(6):651-656. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054443
11.
Megatsari H, Ridlo IA, Amir V, Kusuma D. Visibility and hotspots of outdoor tobacco advertisement around educational facilities without an advertising ban: Geospatial analysis in Surabaya City, Indonesia. Tob Prev Cessat. 2019;5:32. doi:10.18332/tpc/112462
12.
Megatsari H, Ridlo IA, Kusuma D. High visibility of outdoor tobacco advertisements around health facilities in East Java, Indonesia: a geospatial analysis. Medical Journal of Indonesia. 2021;30(2):170-174. doi:10.13181/mji.bc.204177
13.
Astuti PAS, Mulyawan KH, Sebayang SK, Kurniasari NMD, Freeman B. Cigarette retailer density around schools and neighbourhoods in Bali, Indonesia: A GIS mapping. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17:55. doi:10.18332/tid/110004
14.
Dashboard Kawasan Tanpa Rokok. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. 2024. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://ktr.kemkes.go.id/
17.
Henriksen L. The retail environment for tobacco: a barometer of progress towards the endgame. Tob Control. 2015;24(e1):e1-e2. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051884
18.
Schleicher NC, Johnson TO, Fortmann SP, Henriksen L. Tobacco outlet density near home and school: Associations with smoking and norms among US teens. Prev Med. 2016;91:287-293. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.027
19.
Carter OB, Phan T, Mills BW. Impact of a point-of-sale tobacco display ban on smokers' spontaneous purchases: comparisons from postpurchase interviews before and after the ban in Western Australia. Tob Control. 2015;24(e1):e81-e86. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-050991
20.
Leatherdale ST, Strath JM. Tobacco retailer density surrounding schools and cigarette access behaviors among underage smoking students. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(1):105-111. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3301_12
21.
Bostean G, Crespi CM, Vorapharuek P, McCarthy WJ. E-cigarette use among students and e-cigarette specialty retailer presence near schools. Health Place. 2016;42:129-136. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.012
22.
Dewi DMSK, Puspikawati SI, Astutik E, Kusuma D, Melaniani S, Sebayang SK. Density of Cigarette Retailers Near Facilities for Children and Adolescents in Urban and Rural Areas in Indonesia: A Geospatial Analysis. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2022;34(4):384-391. doi:10.1177/10105395221085067
23.
Dewi DMSK, Sebayang SK, Lailiyah S. Density of cigarette retailers near schools and sales to minors in Banyuwangi, Indonesia: A GIS mapping. Tob Induc Dis. 2020;18:06. doi:10.18332/tid/115798
24.
Adisasmito W, Amir V, Atin A, Megraini A, Kusuma D. Density of cigarette retailers around educational facilities in Indonesia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020;24(8):770-775. doi:10.5588/ijtld.19.0686
25.
Phetphum C, Noosorn N. Tobacco Retailers Near Schools and the Violations of Tobacco Retailing Laws in Thailand. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019;25(6):537-542. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000880
26.
Hartono RK, Meirawan RF, Nurhasana R, Dartanto T, Satrya A. Retailer's Density and Single Stick Cigarette's Accessibility among School-Age Children in Indonesia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023;24(2):675-682. doi:10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.2.675
27.
Azzahro EA, Dewi DMSK, Puspikawati SI, et al. Two tobacco retailer programmes in Banyuwangi, Indonesia: a qualitative study. Tob Control. 2021;30(e1):e50-e55. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055834
28.
Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Haladjian HH, Fortmann SP. Reaching youth at the point of sale: cigarette marketing is more prevalent in stores where adolescents shop frequently. Tob Control. 2004;13(3):315-318. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.006577
29.
Nurjanah N, Manglapy YM, Handayani S, et al. Density of tobacco advertising around schools. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020;24(7):674-680. doi:10.5588/ijtld.19.0574
30.
Putra HS, Rosemary R, Yanuar D, Ahsan A. The effect of cigarette advertising on smoking behaviour of students in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication. 2020;36(2):348-363. doi:10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3602-21
31.
Sebayang SK, Dewi DMSK, Puspikawati SI, Astutik E, Melaniani S, Kusuma D. Spatial analysis of outdoor tobacco advertisement around children and adolescents in Indonesia. Glob Public Health. 2022;17(3):420-430. doi:10.1080/17441692.2020.1869800
32.
Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 9 Tahun 2020 Tentang Pedoman Pembatasan Berskala Besar dalam Rangka Percepatan Penanganan Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Accessed October 16, 2024.
http://hukor.kemkes.go.id/uplo...
33.
Large Scale Social Restriction Implementation. Indonesia Travel: The Official Website of Indonesia Tourism. April 29, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2024.
https://www.indonesia.travel/g...
34.
Nurhayati N, Kusuma D, Tarigan AA, Siregar PA, Hasibuan RRA, Ahsan A. Exposure to Outdoor Tobacco Advertisements Near Home is Associated with Smoking among Youth in Indonesia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2022;23(7):2179-2183. doi:10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.7.2179
35.
Ng N, Weinehall L, Ohman A. 'If I don't smoke, I'm not a real man'--Indonesian teenage boys' views about smoking. Health Educ Res. 2007;22(6):794-804. doi:10.1093/her/cyl104