Smoking prevalence following tobacco tax increases in Australia between 2001 and 2017: an interrupted time-series analysis.


Journal

The Lancet. Public health
ISSN: 2468-2667
Titre abrégé: Lancet Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101699003

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
received: 28 05 2019
revised: 30 08 2019
accepted: 08 10 2019
pubmed: 25 11 2019
medline: 7 7 2020
entrez: 25 11 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Building on substantial tobacco control action over the previous decade, Australia increased the taxes on tobacco by 25% without forewarning on April 30, 2010. Australia then became one of a few countries to pre-announce a series of increases in tobacco taxes, with annual 12·5% increases starting from December, 2013. We aimed to examine the effects of both tax increases on smoking prevalence. By use of survey data from Australians aged 14 years and older in five capital cities, we did an interrupted time-series analysis to model the monthly prevalence of smoking (overall, of factory-made cigarettes [FMC], and of roll-your-own tobacco [RYO]), in the total sample and stratified by socioeconomic status subgroups. We measured outcomes in May, 2001-April, 2010; May, 2010-November, 2013; and December, 2013-April, 2017. The 25% tax increase was associated with immediate (-0·745 percentage points; 95% CI -1·378 to -0·112) and sustained reductions in prevalence (monthly trend -0·023 percentage points; -0·044 to -0·003), which were driven by reductions in the prevalence of smoking of FMC. The prevalence of smoking of RYO increased between May, 2010, and November, 2013, after the 25% tax increase. At the start of the pre-announced annual 12·5% increases, we observed an immediate reduction in smoking (-0·997 percentage points; -1·632 to -0·362), followed by decreasing overall prevalence (monthly trend -0·044 percentage points; -0·063 to -0·026) due to ongoing decreases in the prevalence of FMC smoking and a cessation of increases in the prevalence of smoking of RYO. Immediate decreases in smoking and changing trends in the prevalence of smoking of RYO were most evident among groups with a lower socioeconomic status. Large tax increases are effective in reducing smoking prevalence, both as a single increase without forewarning and as a pre-announced series of increases. However, taxes on tobacco are best structured to apply equally to FMC and RYO products. Tobacco control policies should prohibit price marketing that otherwise erodes the full impact of such tax increases. Cancer Council Victoria.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Building on substantial tobacco control action over the previous decade, Australia increased the taxes on tobacco by 25% without forewarning on April 30, 2010. Australia then became one of a few countries to pre-announce a series of increases in tobacco taxes, with annual 12·5% increases starting from December, 2013. We aimed to examine the effects of both tax increases on smoking prevalence.
METHODS
By use of survey data from Australians aged 14 years and older in five capital cities, we did an interrupted time-series analysis to model the monthly prevalence of smoking (overall, of factory-made cigarettes [FMC], and of roll-your-own tobacco [RYO]), in the total sample and stratified by socioeconomic status subgroups. We measured outcomes in May, 2001-April, 2010; May, 2010-November, 2013; and December, 2013-April, 2017.
FINDINGS
The 25% tax increase was associated with immediate (-0·745 percentage points; 95% CI -1·378 to -0·112) and sustained reductions in prevalence (monthly trend -0·023 percentage points; -0·044 to -0·003), which were driven by reductions in the prevalence of smoking of FMC. The prevalence of smoking of RYO increased between May, 2010, and November, 2013, after the 25% tax increase. At the start of the pre-announced annual 12·5% increases, we observed an immediate reduction in smoking (-0·997 percentage points; -1·632 to -0·362), followed by decreasing overall prevalence (monthly trend -0·044 percentage points; -0·063 to -0·026) due to ongoing decreases in the prevalence of FMC smoking and a cessation of increases in the prevalence of smoking of RYO. Immediate decreases in smoking and changing trends in the prevalence of smoking of RYO were most evident among groups with a lower socioeconomic status.
INTERPRETATION
Large tax increases are effective in reducing smoking prevalence, both as a single increase without forewarning and as a pre-announced series of increases. However, taxes on tobacco are best structured to apply equally to FMC and RYO products. Tobacco control policies should prohibit price marketing that otherwise erodes the full impact of such tax increases.
FUNDING
Cancer Council Victoria.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31759897
pii: S2468-2667(19)30203-8
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30203-8
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e618-e627

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Anna L Wilkinson (AL)

Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Michelle M Scollo (MM)

Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Melanie A Wakefield (MA)

Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Matthew J Spittal (MJ)

Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Frank J Chaloupka (FJ)

Health Policy Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Sarah J Durkin (SJ)

Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: sarah.durkin@cancervic.org.au.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH