Dataset Information

The effectiveness of cigarette price and smoke-free homes on low-income smokers in the United States.

ABSTRACT: We examined the effectiveness of state cigarette price and smoke-free homes on smoking behaviors of low-income and high-income populations in the United States.We used the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The primary outcomes were average daily cigarette consumption and successful quitting. We used multivariable regression to examine the association of cigarette price and smoke-free home policies on these outcomes.High state cigarette price (pack price???$4.50) was associated with lower consumption across all income levels. Although low-income individuals were least likely to adopt smoke-free homes, those who adopted them had consumption levels and successful quit rates that were similar to those among higher-income individuals. In multivariable analysis, both policies were independently associated with lower consumption, but only smoke-free homes were associated with sustained cessation at 90 days.High cigarette prices and especially smoke-free homes have the potential to reduce smoking behaviors among low-income individuals. Interventions are needed to increase adoption of smoke-free homes among low-income populations to increase cessation rates and prevent relapse.

SUBMITTER: Vijayaraghavan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3828959 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness of cigarette price and smoke-free homes on low-income smokers in the United States.

Vijayaraghavan Maya M Messer Karen K White Martha M MM Pierce John P JP

American journal of public health 20131017 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>We examined the effectiveness of state cigarette price and smoke-free homes on smoking behaviors of low-income and high-income populations in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The primary outcomes were average daily cigarette consumption and successful quitting. We used multivariable regression to examine the association of cigarette price and smoke-free home policies on these outcomes.<h4>Results</ ...[more]

PMID: 24134354

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMessage avoidance (e.g., trying not to look at the message) may be motivated by reactance, a maladaptive rejection of the message. An alternative view is that avoidance indicates that a message is eliciting fear and other negative affect, thereby increasing the likelihood of behavioral change. We sought to identify which psychological mechanism-reactance or fear and other negative affect-explains message avoidance. We also examined whether avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes.MethodTrial 1 randomly assigned 2149 adult U.S. smokers to receive either pictorial warnings (intervention) or text-only warnings (control) on their cigarette packs for four weeks in 2014 and 2015. Trial 2 randomly assigned 719 adult U.S. smokers to receive either messages about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) for three weeks in 2016 and 2017. Negative affect included fear, anxiety, disgust, sadness, and guilt. Reactance included perceived threat to freedom, anger, and counterarguing.ResultsIntervention messages led to greater message avoidance in both trials (both p < .001). In Trial 1, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which in turn was associated with greater avoidance (mediated effect = 0.21, p < .001). In contrast, reactance explained only a small part of the effect in Trial 1 (mediated effect = 0.03, p < .001). Similarly, in Trial 2, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which was associated with more avoidance (mediated effect = 0.12, p < .001); reactance did not explain any of the effect. In both trials, avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes (ps < .001).ConclusionsSmokers may avoid cigarette pack risk messages because they evoke aversive types of emotion. These studies add to a growing body of evidence that, in the context of cigarette pack messages, avoidance is not a form of defensive processing but instead a sign of deeper processing.

Project description:IntroductionGiven homes are now a primary source of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the United States, research-tested interventions that promote smoke-free homes should be evaluated in real-world settings to build the evidence base for dissemination. This study describes outcome evaluation results from a dissemination and implementation study of a research-tested program to increase smoke-free home rules through US 2-1-1 helplines.MethodsFive 2-1-1 organizations, chosen through a competitive application process, were awarded grants of up to $70 000. 2-1-1 staff recruited participants, delivered the intervention, and evaluated the program. 2-1-1 clients who were recruited into the program allowed smoking in the home, lived in households with both a smoker and a nonsmoker or child, spoke English, and were at least 18 years old. Self-reported outcomes were assessed using a pre-post design, with follow-up at 2 months post baseline.ResultsA total of 2345 households (335-605 per 2-1-1 center) were enrolled by 2-1-1 staff. Most participants were female (82%) and smokers (76%), and half were African American (54%). Overall, 40.1% (n = 940) reported creating a full household smoking ban. Among the nonsmoking adults reached at follow-up (n = 389), days of SHS exposure in the past week decreased from 4.9 (SD = 2.52) to 1.2 (SD = 2.20). Among the 1148 smokers reached for follow-up, 211 people quit, an absolute reduction in smoking of 18.4% (p < .0001), with no differences by gender.ConclusionsAmong those reached for 2-month follow-up, the proportion who reported establishing a smoke-free home was comparable to or higher than smoke-free home rates in the prior controlled research studies.ImplicationsDissemination of this brief research-tested intervention via a national grants program with support from university staff to five 2-1-1 centers increased home smoking bans, decreased SHS exposure, and increased cessation rates. Although the program delivery capacity demonstrated by these competitively selected 2-1-1s may not generalize to the broader 2-1-1 network in the United States, or social service agencies outside of the United States, partnering with 2-1-1s may be a promising avenue for large-scale dissemination of this smoke-free homes program and other public health programs to low socioeconomic status populations in the United States.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the impact of a 50% increase in market prices of cigarettes on health, poverty, and financial protection.DesignCompartmental model study.Setting13 middle income countries, totalling two billion men.Participants500 million male smokers.Main outcome measuresLife years gained, averted treatment costs, number of men avoiding catastrophic healthcare expenditures and poverty, and additional tax revenue by income group.ResultsA 50% increase in cigarette prices would lead to about 450 million years of life gained across the 13 countries from smoking cessation, with half of these in China. Across all countries, men in the bottom income group (poorest 20% of the population) would gain 6.7 times more life years than men in the top income group (richest 20% of the population; 155 v 23 million). The average life years gained from cessation for each smoker in the bottom income group was 5.1 times that of the top group (1.46 v 0.23 years). Of the $157bn (£113bn; €127bn) in averted treatment costs, the bottom income group would avert 4.6 times more costs than the top income group ($46bn v $10bn). About 15.5 million men would avoid catastrophic health expenditures in a subset of seven countries without universal health coverage. As result, 8.8 million men, half of them in the bottom income group, would avoid falling below the World Bank definition of extreme poverty. These 8.8 million men constitute 2.4% of people living in extreme poverty in these countries. In contrast, the top income group would pay twice as much as the bottom income group of the $122bn additional tax collected. Overall, the bottom income group would get 31% of the life years saved and 29% each of the averted disease costs and averted catastrophic health expenditures, while paying only 10% of the additional taxes.ConclusionsHigher prices of cigarettes provide more health and financial gains to the poorest 20% than to the richest 20% of the population. Higher excise taxes support the targets of the sustainable development goals on non-communicable diseases and poverty, and provides financial protection against illness.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of cigarette price and smoke-free homes on low-income smokers in the United States.

Publications

The effectiveness of cigarette price and smoke-free homes on low-income smokers in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets