Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundCigarette smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA, in part because the USA has not adopted the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One way the tobacco industry counteracts tobacco control policies is by heavily advertising cigarettes at the point of sale in retailers (eg, at the cash register) and by offering discounts on cigarettes.DesignA within-subject experimental design with adults who smoke cigarettes daily (n=281) investigated whether: (1) exposure to images of cigarette promotions in an online experiment is associated with greater cigarette craving relative to viewing images of non-smoking cues, and (2) if exposure to images of point-of-sale cigarette promotions with a discount (vs without) increases cigarette craving. The study also examined how participants’ subjective social status (compared with others in the USA) relates to cigarette craving after exposure to images of cigarette promotions with and without a discount.ResultsIn an online experiment, exposure to images of smoking cues, including point-of-sale cigarette promotions, elicited greater craving relative to non-smoking cues (all p<0.001). In addition, images of promotions with a discount elicited higher levels of craving compared with those without a discount (b=0.09, p=0.001). Although participants with a higher (vs lower) subjective social status craved cigarettes less overall (b=−0.12, p=0.012), there was no difference in their craving between images of promotions with and without a discount, while craving was higher for images of promotions with a discount than without for participants with higher subjective social status (b=0.06, p=0.021).ConclusionViewing images of point-of-sale cigarette promotions can causally increase cravings to smoke, which may also apply to real-world retail settings that display cigarette promotions. Restricting point-of-sale promotions generally, and discounts specifically, could help reduce cigarette smoking and address tobacco use disparities in the USA.

IntroductionMaternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with adverse perinatal and postnatal health outcomes. The efficacy of nicotine replacement therapies in helping pregnant smokers to quit is not clearly demonstrated; therefore new interventions should be proposed and assessed. Financial incentives rewarding abstinence from tobacco smoking is one of the promising options.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of financial incentives on smoking abstinence among French pregnant smokers.Methods and analysisParticipants: pregnant smokers aged ≥18 years, smoking at least five manufactured or three roll-your-own cigarettes per day, and pregnant for <18 weeks of amenorrhoea (WA). Setting: participants will be recruited, included and followed-up at monthly face-to-face visits in 16 maternity wards in France. Interventions: participants will be randomised to a control or an intervention group. After a predefined quit date, participants in the control group will receive €20 vouchers at the completion of each visit but no financial incentive for smoking abstinence. Participants in the intervention group will be rewarded for their abstinence by vouchers on top of the €20 show-up fee. The amount of reward for abstinence will increase as a function of duration of abstinence to stimulate longer periods of abstinence. Main outcome measure: complete abstinence from quit date to the last predelivery visit. Secondary outcome measures: point prevalence abstinence, time to relapse to smoking, birth weight, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth. Main data analysis: outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The ITT population is defined as all randomised smoking pregnant women.Ethics and disseminationThe research protocol was approved by the ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, CPP) of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital on 15 May 2015, and Amendment No 1 was approved on 13 July 2015. Results will be presented at scientific meetings and published.Trial registration numberNCT02606227; Pre-results.

The availability of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has profoundly changed the tobacco product landscape. In the United States, almost 6 million adults use both combustible and e-cigarettes (ie, dual users). The goal of this study was to understand how smokers and dual users differ in terms of demographics, cigarette dependence, and exposure to carcinogens. An observational cohort (smokers, n = 166, ≥5 cigarettes/day for 6 months and no e-cigarette use in 3 months; dual users, n = 256, smoked daily for 3 months and used e-cigarettes at least once/week for the past 3 months) completed baseline assessments of demographics, tobacco use, and dependence. They also provided breath samples for carbon monoxide (CO) assay and urine samples for cotinine, 3-hydroxycotinine, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) assays. Compared to smokers, dual users (mean e-cigarette use = 5.5 days/week [SD = 1.9]) were significantly younger and more likely to be white, have more education, report a history of psychiatric co-morbidity, and smoke fewer cigarettes per day. There were no differences in CO, cotinine, or 3-hydroxycotinine levels; however, dual users had significantly lower levels of NNAL than did smokers. Most smokers and dual users had no plans to quit smoking within the next year; 91% of dual users planned to continue using e-cigarettes for at least the next year. In this community sample, dual users are supplementing their smoking with e-cigarette use. Dual users, versus smokers, smoked fewer cigarettes per day and delayed their first cigarette of the day, but did not differ in quitting intentions. This comparison of a community sample of established dual users and exclusive smokers addresses key questions of dependence and health risks of dual use in real-world settings. Dual users were more likely to be white, younger, have more than a high school education and have a psychiatric history. Dual users also smoked significantly fewer cigarettes and had lower levels of NNAL (a carcinogen), but they did not differ from exclusive smokers in CO or cotinine levels, suggesting that they supplemented their nicotine intake via e-cigarettes.

Previous evidence linked low socioeconomic status with higher smoking prevalence. Our objective was to assess the strength of this association in the world population, updating a previous work. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Subgroup analyses included continents, WHO regions, country mortality levels, gender, age, risk of bias, and study publication date. Independent reviewers selected studies, assessed potential bias and extracted data. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SOCINDEX, AFRICAN INDEX MEDICUS, and LILACS, and other sources from 1989 to 2013 reporting direct measurements of income and current cigarette smoking. We retrieved 13,583 articles and included 93 for meta-analysis. Median smoking prevalence was 17.8% (range 3-70%). Lower income was consistently associated with higher smoking prevalence (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-1.56). This association was statistically significant in the subgroup analysis by WHO regions for the Americas (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.42-1.68), South East Asia (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.10-2.00), Europe (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.29-1.63), and Western Pacific (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.02-1.72), and in studies conducted during 1990s (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.24-1.62) and 2000s (OR: 1.48; 95%CI: 1.30-1.64). Likewise, it was noted in low-mortality countries (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.37-1.60) and for both genders. Prevalence was highest in the lowest income levels compared to the middle (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.49-1.92), followed by the middle level compared to the highest (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.20-1.43). Our results show that current cigarette smoking was significantly associated with lower income worldwide and across subgroups, suggesting a dose-response relationship. This unique updated systematic review shows a consistent inverse dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and income level, present among most geographical areas and country characteristics. Public health measures should take into account this potential inequity and consider special efforts directed to disadvantaged populations.

IntroductionUnderstanding the impact of prices for tobacco and nicotine products is critical for creating policies to prevent use among young people. This study examines the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and cigarette prices on current e-cigarette and cigarette use among youth and young adults.MethodsData were from a national probability-based sample aged 15–21 collected in 2014 and followed every 6 months for 2.5 years through 2016. We conducted separate conditional likelihood logistic regression models with past 30-day e-cigarette use and past 30-day cigarette use outcomes on the sample of individuals who participated in at least two survey waves (n=11 578) with linked Nielsen market-level price data for rechargeable e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Models controlled for time-varying variables at the individual and state policy levels, and fixed effects at the individual, wave and market levels.ResultsHigher cigarette prices were associated with increased past 30-day e-cigarette use, indicating e-cigarettes may serve as a substitute for cigarettes. We did not find a statistically significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day e-cigarette use; neither did we find a significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day cigarette smoking.ConclusionThis is the first study to examine e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette behaviour longitudinally among young people. Findings suggest the need for better measuring the costs associated with e-cigarette use among this population, as well as a careful assessment of price and tax policies that takes into account cross-product impact to sufficiently discourage e-cigarette and cigarette use among young people.

BackgroundPhilip Morris International, one of the largest transnational cigarette manufacturers, has heavily invested in its new heated tobacco product, IQOS, marketing it aggressively as a less harmful alternative to cigarette smoking. The company’s assertions that the product replaces cigarettes in a market have never been independently tested. The objective of this study is to determine whether introduction of IQOS affected cigarette sales in a large economy.Data and MethodsUsing 2014 to 2018 monthly retailer panel data from Japan, we analyse whether different dates of IQOS introduction across Japan’s regions are reflected in the patterns of cigarette sales in those regions. A series of placebo models are estimated to test if events other than IQOS introduction could have better explained the observed trends in cigarette sales.ResultsCigarette sales begin to substantially decline at the time of the introduction of IQOS in each of 11 Japanese regions (Chow tests p<0.001). IQOS introduction, which varied across regions, better predicted the timing of cigarette sales decline than any one time applied to all regions simultaneously (a national-level exogenous shock) and than nearly all possible rearrangements of the true IQOS introduction months among the regions (exact permutation test’s p value from 0.02 to 0.13, depending on the study approach).ConclusionsThe introduction of IQOS likely reduced cigarette sales in Japan. The net population health impact, however, cannot be assessed without resolving several key uncertainties related to the direct harms of IQOS and the precise patterns of both smoking and IQOS use.

The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how \"organic,\" \"natural,\" and \"additive-free\" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm. Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were \"organic,\" \"natural,\" \"additive-free,\" \"light,\" or \"regular;\" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, \"additive-free\"). Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being \"organic,\" \"natural,\" or \"additive-free\" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with \"regular\" and \"light\" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching. \"Organic,\" \"natural,\" and \"additive-free\" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. \"Organic,\" \"natural,\" and \"additive-free\" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of \"organic,\" \"natural,\" and \"additive-free\" claims in tobacco marketing.

Vietnam is one of countries with the highest number of smokers in the world and the high smoking prevalence among men in the region. Although the real cigarette prices increased by around 4% during the 2010–2015 period, the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking among men decreased slightly from 31.3% to 30.7% during this period. This raises the question of whether cigarette consumption is sensitive to price. In this study, we estimated the effect of cigarette prices on smoking participation and tobacco expenditure in Vietnam. We found that a one-percent increase in the real cigarette price reduced the probability of cigarette smoking among males by 0.08 percentage points (95% CI from -0.06 to -0.10), equivalent to the price elasticity of the smoking prevalence at -0.26 (95% CI from -0.16% to -0.33%). Using this estimate, we predict that if the cigarette price is increased by 10%, the daily cigarette smoking prevalence among men would decrease from 30.7% to 29.9% and the number of male smokers would decline by around 270 thousand. Higher cigarette prices also reduced per capita tobacco expenditure of households. A one-percent increase in the cigarette price decreased per capita expenditure on tobacco consumption expenditure of households by 0.43 percent (the 95% CI from -0.029 to 0.822). This finding suggests that raising tobacco taxes and prices can be an effective measure to reduce tobacco use.

IntroductionThe overall prevalence of cigarette smoking has not changed significantly for over a decade in Bangladesh. Raising the price of cigarettes through taxation is an important policy instrument for reducing consumption and achieving public health goals. The price elasticity of cigarette demand is an important parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of raising prices through tax increases in reducing cigarette consumption. The objective of the study was to estimate the price elasticity of cigarette demand in Bangladesh using Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2009 and 2017 data.MethodsSmoking prevalence and smoking intensity were estimated using a two-part model. Endogeneity of prices was minimised using the average consumption-weighted cigarette price in a cluster, for both smokers and non-smokers residing in a specific cluster.ResultsCigarette demand was found to be price inelastic and ranged between −0.51 and −0.73. It is also price inelastic across wealth groups and areas of residence in Bangladesh. Although the total price elasticity did not differ considerably between rural and urban locations, it is evident that individuals in the lower-wealth group are more than twice as responsive to price increases as their high-wealth counterparts.ConclusionA significant increase in cigarette prices through a tax increase would decrease smoking prevalence and increase tax revenue in Bangladesh. The greater price sensitivity among smokers in lower-wealth groups indicates that a tax-induced cigarette price increase would provide more health benefits to them, thereby contributing to improved health equity.

ObjectiveTo investigate the association of state-level cigarette price and tobacco control expenditure with the large 2000–2019 decline in cigarette smoking among US 18–24 year-olds.MethodsSmoking behaviour was assessed in the 24 most populous US states using the 1992–2019 Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Survey; association with price and expenditure was tested using adjusted logistic regression. States were ranked by inflation-adjusted average price and tobacco control expenditure and grouped into tertiles. State-specific time trends were estimated, with slope changes in 2001/2002 and 2010/2011.ResultsBetween 2000 and 2010, the odds of smoking among US young adults decreased by a third (adjusted OR, AOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84). By 2019, these odds were one-quarter of their 2000 level (AOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.31). Among states in the lowest tertile of price/expenditure tobacco control activity, initially higher young adult smoking decreased by 13 percentage points from 2010 to 2018–2019, to a prevalence of 5.6% (95% CI 4.5% to 6.8%), equal to that in the highest tobacco-control tertile of states (6.5%, 95% CI 5.2% to 7.8%). Neither state tobacco control spending (AOR 1.0, 95% CI 0.999 to 1.002) nor cigarette price (AOR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.01) were associated with young adult smoking in statistical models. In 2019, seven states had prevalence over 3 SDs higher than the 24-state mean.ConclusionNational programmes may have filled a gap in state-level interventions, helping drive down the social acceptability of cigarette smoking among young adults across all states. Additional interventions are needed to assist high-prevalence states to further reduce smoking.