Dataset Information

Anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco: an online cross-sectional survey with cigarette smokers and ex-smokers in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

As tobacco companies can circumvent tax increases, a minimum retail price per-cigarette/per-gram of roll-your-own tobacco presents an additional mechanism for governments to reduce smoking. We examined (1) anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price-per-cigarette/per-gram among smokers in the UK; (2) what demographic and smoker characteristics are associated with anticipated responses; and (3) whether minimum pricing may help ex-smokers stay quit.

Design

Cross-sectional survey (May-July 2019).

Setting

UK.

Participants

Adult cigarette smokers (n=2412) and ex-smokers (n=700).

Main outcome measurements

Anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price of £10.00 for 20 cigarettes (£0.50 per-cigarette) and £13.50 for 30 grams of roll-your-own tobacco (£0.45 per-gram); approximately £0.10 per-cigarette/per-gram increases on the cheapest prices in leading UK supermarkets (January 2019). Smokers were presented with ten options (eg, 'Try to quit') and asked which they would do (Yes/No) and then which they would most likely do. Ex-smokers were asked to what extent the minimum prices would help them stay quit (A lot vs Lesser agreement).

Results

Among smokers, 55.6% said they would most likely smoke the same amount, 10.7% they would smoke less, 9.5% they would try to quit and 5.8% they would use e-cigarettes more often. Anticipated reactions were associated with demography and smoker characteristics, for example, C2DE (lower social grade) smokers were less likely than ABC1 (higher social grade) smokers to say they would smoke the same as they do now (OR_Adj=0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.88). Among ex-smokers, 38.5% said the minimum prices would help them stay quit 'A lot', more so among C2DE than ABC1 participants (OR_Adj=1.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.49).

Conclusions

In response to a hypothetical minimum price for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco, approximately a fifth of smokers in the UK indicated they would smoke less or quit and almost two-fifths of ex-smokers indicated the prices would help them stay quit.

SUBMITTER: Critchlow N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7986940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate about the benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes (ECs). To better understand the risk-benefit ratio of ECs, more information is needed about net nicotine consumption and toxicant exposure of cigarette smokers switching to ECs.MethodsForty cigarette smokers (?1 year of smoking) interested in switching to ECs but not necessarily quitting smoking were enrolled in a 4-week observational study and provided an e-Go C non-variable battery and refillable atomizers and choice of eight flavors in 12 or 24 mg nicotine dosage. Measurement of urinary cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; a pulmonary carcinogen), and eight volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents was conducted at baseline and week 4.ResultsAll participants with follow-up data (92.5%) reported using the study EC. Of the 40 smokers, 16 reported no cigarettes at week 2 (40%) and six continued to report no cigarettes at week 4 (15%). Change in nicotine intake over the 4 weeks was non-significant (p = .90). Carbon monoxide (p < .001), NNAL (p < .01) and metabolites of benzene (p < .01) and acrylonitrile (p = .001) were significantly decreased in the study sample. Smokers switching exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period demonstrated significant reductions in metabolites of ethylene oxide (p = .03) and acrylamide (p < .01).ConclusionSmokers using ECs over 4 weeks maintained cotinine levels and experienced significant reductions in carbon monoxide, NNAL, and two out of eight measured VOC metabolites. Those who switched exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period significantly reduced two additional VOCs.ImplicationsThis study extends current literature by measuring change in smoking dependence and disease-associated biomarkers, NNAL and a panel of eight common VOCs that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents in smokers who switch to ECs. The findings support the idea of harm reduction, however some levels of toxicant exposure are still of clinical concern, particularly for dual users. Extrapolation of these results must be careful to separate the different toxic exposure results for exclusive switchers versus dual cigarette + EC users, and not to equate harm reduction with the idea that using ECs is harmless.

Project description:Introduction:While smoking rates have declined, use of smokeless tobacco (ST) has remained constant. ST is heavily marketed to cigarette smokers, and many ST users smoke cigarettes. This study provides updated comparisons of the characteristics, smoking behaviors, and perceptions of US adult dual ST and cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers in 2015-2016. Methods:Data were from nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys from 2015 and 2016. Adult smokers reported past 30-day use of ST, current cigarette smoking, risk perceptions, smoking, and quitting behaviors. We estimated Rao-Scott ?2 and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to compare dual users and exclusive smokers. Results:Dual users were more likely to be younger, reside in nonmetropolitan statistical areas (MSA) and outside the Northeast United States. Adjusting for covariates, dual users did not differ significantly from exclusive smokers on most smoker characteristics, including number of past year quit attempts. Dual users were more likely to report past 30-day use of novel tobacco products (AORs 2.90 [little cigars and cigarillos] to 11.02 [hookah]). Dual users who reported at least 1 past year cigarette quit attempt were more likely than exclusive smokers to report using ST, traditional cigars, hookah, or heat-not-burn as a past year quit method (AOR: 9.54 [95% CI: 3.22 to 28.23]). Conclusions:Smokers who use ST are more likely than exclusive smokers to attempt to quit smoking cigarettes using other tobacco products. These findings may be attributed to increasing use prevalence of novel products. We recommend further monitoring to assess polytobacco use and differences among these populations. Implications:Many current ST users smoke cigarettes and ST promotions often target cigarette smokers. As the FDA considers ST regulations and implements a nicotine centered regulatory framework, it is imperative to evaluate how these policies and promotion of ST as potentially reduced risk products impact dual and polytobacco use. Our study found that many dual users engage in novel tobacco use in general and as a cessation method. Consideration of ST and polytobacco use among smokers may be helpful in the development of forthcoming FDA regulations, messaging, and interventions.

Project description:AimsTo examine the effect on adolescents of exposure to different e-cigarette advertisement themes on reported likelihood of purchasing e-cigarettes in a hypothetical scenario.DesignBetween-subjects design of four randomly assigned thematic conditions derived from a content analysis of 350 e-cigarette advertisements: general, flavor- and taste-themed, people- and product use-themed or control advertisements for bottled water.SettingVirginia, USA.ParticipantsOf 1360 adolescents (13-18 years old) participating, 1063 had complete data (519 current cigarette smokers, 544 tobacco-susceptible non-smokers).MeasurementsParticipants completed an e-cigarette purchase task, reporting the likelihood of buying an e-cigarette at various prices. Indices of abuse liability included price responsiveness (whether likelihood of purchase decreased with increasing prices) and, among price-responsive adolescents, breakpoint (highest price before definitely would not buy), maximum probability-weighted expenditure (Omax ) and price elasticity (how quickly willingness to purchase decreases as prices increase). Regressions controlled for demographics, prior tobacco ad exposure, tobacco/substance use and sensation-seeking.FindingsPrior advertisement exposure was positively associated with being price-responsive [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03, 1.22; P < 0.05]. Among price-responsive adolescents (n = 579), breakpoints were 58% higher in the flavor- and taste-themed condition (β = 0.46, 95% CI = <0.01, 0.92) and 75% higher in the people- and product use-themed condition (β = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.10, 1.03) compared with control (Ps < 0.05). Exposure to people- and product use-themed advertisements was associated with a 60% higher Omax (β = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.93; P < 0.05). The general and people- and product use-themed conditions were associated with 19% (β = -0.21, 95% CI = -0.38, -0.04) and 21% (β = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.42, -0.06) lower elasticity, respectively (Ps < 0.05).ConclusionsE-cigarette advertising exposure may increase reported likelihood of purchasing e-cigarettes, with effects differing by advertisement content. People- and product use-themed e-cigarette advertisements increased reported likelihood of purchasing in price-responsive adolescents.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cannabis and tobacco couse is common and could expose users to higher levels of toxicants. No studies have examined biomarkers of toxicant exposure in cousers of cannabis and cigarettes, compared with cigarette smokers (CS). AIMS AND METHODS:Adult daily CS were recruited from 10 US sites for a study of reduced nicotine cigarettes. In this analysis of baseline data, participants were categorized as either cousers of cannabis and tobacco (cousers; N = 167; urine positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-??9-tetrahydrocannnabinol and self-reported cannabis use ?1×/week), or CS (N = 911; negative urine and no self-reported cannabis use). Participants who did not meet either definition (N = 172) were excluded. Self-reported tobacco and cannabis use and tobacco and/or combustion-related biomarkers of exposure were compared between groups. RESULTS:Compared to CS, cousers were younger (couser Mage = 38.96, SD = 13.01; CS Mage = 47.22, SD = 12.72; p < .001) and more likely to be male (cousers = 67.7%, CS = 51.9%, p < .001). There were no group differences in self-reported cigarettes/day, total nicotine equivalents, or breath carbon monoxide, but cousers had greater use of non-cigarette tobacco products. Compared to CS, cousers had higher concentrations of 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid, S-phenylmercapturic acid, 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (ps < .05), and phenanthrene tetraol (p < .001). No biomarkers were affected by number of cannabis use days/week or days since last cannabis use during baseline (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS:Cousers had higher concentrations of biomarkers of exposure than CS, but similar number of cigarettes per day and nicotine exposure. Additional studies are needed to determine whether cannabis and/or alternative tobacco products are driving the increased toxicant exposure. IMPLICATIONS:Cousers of cannabis and tobacco appear to be exposed to greater levels of harmful chemicals (ie, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), but similar levels of nicotine as CS. It is unclear if the higher levels of toxicant exposure in cousers are due to cannabis use or the increased use of alternative tobacco products compared with CS. It is important for studies examining biomarkers of exposure among CS to account for cannabis use as it may have a significant impact on outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed examining exposure to harmful chemicals among cannabis users.