The impact of vaping and regulatory environment on cigarette demand: behavioral economic perspective across four countries.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Australia
Canada
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Cross-Sectional Studies
Economics, Behavioral
/ legislation & jurisprudence
England
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Motivation
Social Values
Tobacco Products
/ economics
United States
Vaping
/ economics
Young Adult
Behavioral economics
demand
e-cigarettes
policy
price
tobacco control
vaping
Journal
Addiction (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1360-0443
Titre abrégé: Addiction
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9304118
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
06
08
2018
revised:
20
11
2018
accepted:
20
12
2018
pubmed:
24
12
2018
medline:
29
10
2020
entrez:
22
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Government regulations of nicotine vaping products (NVP) have evolved rapidly during the past decade. The impact of NVP regulatory environment and vaping on cigarette demand is unknown. The current study aims to investigate whether or not respondents' reported cigarette demand, as measured by a hypothetical cigarette purchase task, varies with (1) smoking status, (2) vaping status or (3) NVP regulatory environment (country used as proxy). Cross-sectional survey data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey (2016). Australia, Canada, England and the United States. A total of 10 316 adult smokers. A hypothetical purchase task asked smokers to estimate how many cigarettes they would purchase for consumption in a single day across multiple cigarette prices. Responses were used to derive measures of cigarette demand. Overall sensitivity of cigarette consumption to price increases was quantified to index cigarette demand elasticity, whereas estimated consumption when cigarettes are free was used to index cigarette demand intensity. A majority of the non-daily smokers had previously smoked daily (72.3%); daily vapers were more likely to be former daily smokers (89.9%) compared to non-daily vapers (70.1%) and non-vapers (69.2%) (P < 0.001). The smoking status × vaping status interaction was significant for cigarette demand intensity (F = 4.93; P = 0.007) and elasticity (F = 7.30; P = 0.001): among non-daily smokers, vapers reported greater intensity but lower elasticity (i.e. greater demand) relative to non-vapers (Ps < 0.05). Among daily smokers, daily vapers reported greater intensity relative to non-vapers (P = 0.005), but vaping status did not impact elasticity (Ps > 0.38). Intensity was higher in Australia compared with all other countries (Ps < 0.001), but elasticity did not vary by country (F = 2.15; P = 0.09). In a hypothetical purchase task, non-daily smokers showed lower price elasticity if they used e-cigarettes than if they did not, while there was no clear difference in elasticity between e-cigarette users and non-users among daily smokers or according to regulatory environment of their country with regard to e-cigarettes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Government regulations of nicotine vaping products (NVP) have evolved rapidly during the past decade. The impact of NVP regulatory environment and vaping on cigarette demand is unknown. The current study aims to investigate whether or not respondents' reported cigarette demand, as measured by a hypothetical cigarette purchase task, varies with (1) smoking status, (2) vaping status or (3) NVP regulatory environment (country used as proxy).
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey (2016).
SETTING
Australia, Canada, England and the United States.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 10 316 adult smokers.
MEASUREMENTS
A hypothetical purchase task asked smokers to estimate how many cigarettes they would purchase for consumption in a single day across multiple cigarette prices. Responses were used to derive measures of cigarette demand. Overall sensitivity of cigarette consumption to price increases was quantified to index cigarette demand elasticity, whereas estimated consumption when cigarettes are free was used to index cigarette demand intensity.
FINDINGS
A majority of the non-daily smokers had previously smoked daily (72.3%); daily vapers were more likely to be former daily smokers (89.9%) compared to non-daily vapers (70.1%) and non-vapers (69.2%) (P < 0.001). The smoking status × vaping status interaction was significant for cigarette demand intensity (F = 4.93; P = 0.007) and elasticity (F = 7.30; P = 0.001): among non-daily smokers, vapers reported greater intensity but lower elasticity (i.e. greater demand) relative to non-vapers (Ps < 0.05). Among daily smokers, daily vapers reported greater intensity relative to non-vapers (P = 0.005), but vaping status did not impact elasticity (Ps > 0.38). Intensity was higher in Australia compared with all other countries (Ps < 0.001), but elasticity did not vary by country (F = 2.15; P = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS
In a hypothetical purchase task, non-daily smokers showed lower price elasticity if they used e-cigarettes than if they did not, while there was no clear difference in elasticity between e-cigarette users and non-users among daily smokers or according to regulatory environment of their country with regard to e-cigarettes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30575186
doi: 10.1111/add.14538
pmc: PMC7029808
mid: NIHMS1068152
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
123-133Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K23 DA041616
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA200512
Pays : United States
Organisme : Senior Investigator Grant from the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research
Pays : International
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
ID : APP1106451
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.
Références
Nicotine Tob Res. 2012 Jun;14(6):761-5
pubmed: 22157231
J Exp Anal Behav. 2013 Jan;99(1):98-124
pubmed: 23344991
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Aug 1;177:14-22
pubmed: 28550711
Prev Med. 2018 Dec;117:98-106
pubmed: 29702131
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Oct;23(5):377-86
pubmed: 26147181
Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Mar 6;20(4):528
pubmed: 28633315
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 May 21;21(6):784-791
pubmed: 29547973
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Jun;26(3):233-243
pubmed: 29863381
Br J Addict. 1989 Jul;84(7):791-9
pubmed: 2758152
Tob Control. 2018 Jan;27(1):18-25
pubmed: 28970328
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Dec;23(6):504-12
pubmed: 26280591
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016 Jun;233(12):2365-71
pubmed: 27048156
Tob Regul Sci. 2017 Jul;3(3):266-279
pubmed: 31276024
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2011 Oct;13(5):406-15
pubmed: 21732213
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016 Sep;233(17):3103-12
pubmed: 27325392
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1999 Nov;7(4):412-26
pubmed: 10609976
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:193-213
pubmed: 29323611
J Psychopharmacol. 2017 Jul;31(7):851-860
pubmed: 28612651
Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 May;17(5):592-8
pubmed: 25548256
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Jan 15;113(2-3):207-14
pubmed: 20832200
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Feb;16(1):57-65
pubmed: 18266552
Addiction. 2012 Dec;107(12):2191-200
pubmed: 22845784
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):531-7
pubmed: 26498173
Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Apr;12(4):416-22
pubmed: 20194522