Search

BackgroundCalifornia Proposition 56 increased cigarette excise tax by $2 per pack with equivalent increases on non-cigarette tobacco products. We estimated the changes in cigarette price, cigarette use, and non-cigarette use following the implementation of Proposition 56 in California in 2017.MethodsSeven waves of Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) 2011-2019 data were used to obtain state-level aggregate self-reported outcomes, including cigarette price per pack, current and daily cigarette use, cigarette consumption per day, and current and daily use of non-cigarette tobacco products (hookah, pipe, cigar, and smokeless tobacco). A modified version of a synthetic control method was used to create a "synthetic" California that best resembled pre-policy sociodemographic characteristics and outcome trends in California while correcting time-invariant pre-policy differences. Various sensitivity analyses were also conducted.ResultsThe implementation of Proposition 56 was associated with an increase in self-reported cigarette price per pack in California ($1.844, 95%CI: $0.153, $3.534; p = 0.032). No evidence suggested that Proposition 56 was associated with the changes in the prevalence of current or daily cigarette use, cigarette consumption per day, or the prevalence of current or daily use of non-cigarette tobacco products.ConclusionMost of the cigarette tax increase following Proposition 56 in California was passed on to consumers. There is a lack of evidence that the implementation of Proposition 56 was associated with the changes in the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products such as hookah, pipe, cigar, and smokeless tobacco.

BackgroundMore smokers report using e-cigarettes to help them quit than FDA-approved pharmacotherapy.ObjectiveTo assess the association of e-cigarettes with future abstinence from cigarette and tobacco use.DesignCohort study of US sample, with annual follow-up.ParticipantsUS adult (ages 18+) daily cigarette smokers identified at Wave 1 (W1; 2013-14) of the PATH Study, who reported a quit attempt before W2 and completed W3 (n = 2443).ExposuresUse of e-cigarettes, pharmacotherapy (including nicotine replacement therapy), or no product for last quit attempt (LQA), and current daily e-cigarette use at W2.AnalysisPropensity score matching (PSM) of groups using different methods to quit.Outcome measures12+ months abstinence at W3 from cigarettes and from all tobacco (including e-cigarettes). 30+ days abstinence at W3 was a secondary outcome.ResultsAmong daily smokers with an LQA, 23.5% used e-cigarettes, 19.3% used pharmacotherapy only (including NRT) and 57.2% used no product. Cigarette abstinence for 12+ months at W3 was ~10% in each group. Half of the cigarette abstainers in the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes at W3. Different methods to help quitting had statistically comparable 12+ month cigarette abstinence at W3 (e-cigarettes vs no product: Risk Difference (RD) = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.06; e-cigarettes vs pharmacotherapy: RD = 0.02, 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.09). Likewise, daily e-cigarette users at W2 did not show a cessation benefit over comparable no-e-cigarette users and this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. Abstinence for 30+ days at W3 was also similar across products.LimitationsThe frequency of e-cigarette use during the LQA was not assessed, nor was it possible to assess continuous abstinence from the LQA.ConclusionAmong US daily smokers who quit cigarettes in 2014-15, use of e-cigarettes in that attempt compared to approved cessation aids or no products showed similar abstinence rates 1-2 years later.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201467.].

BackgroundLower rates of successful quitting among low-income populations in the United States may be from slower dissemination of smoke-free homes, a predictor of cessation.ObjectivesTo explore the role of smoke-free homes in cessation behavior across income levels.ParticipantsCurrent smokers who were ≥18 years and who participated in the longitudinal 2002-2003 (n = 2801) or 2010-2011 (n = 2723) Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Survey.MeasurementsWe categorized income as multiples of the federal poverty level (FPL) (300%FPL). Although similar in 2002, the prevalence of smoke-free homes was 33% lower among individuals living

BackgroundWhile a great number of papers have been published on the short-term effects of air pollution on mortality, few have tried to assess whether this association varies according to the neighbourhood socioeconomic level and long-term ambient air concentrations measured at the place of residence. We explored the effect modification of 1) socioeconomic status, 2) long-term NO2 ambient air concentrations, and 3) both combined, on the association between short-term exposure to NO2 and all-cause mortality in Paris (France).MethodsA time-stratified case-crossover analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of short-term NO2 variations on mortality, based on 79,107 deaths having occurred among subjects aged over 35 years, from 2004 to 2009, in the city of Paris. Simple and double interactions were statistically tested in order to analyse effect modification by neighbourhood characteristics on the association between mortality and short-term NO2 exposure. The data was estimated at the census block scale (n=866).ResultsThe mean of the NO2 concentrations during the five days prior to deaths were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality: overall Excess Risk (ER) was 0.94% (95%CI=[0.08;1.80]. A higher risk was revealed for subjects living in the most deprived census blocks in comparison with higher socioeconomic level areas (ER=3.14% (95%CI=[1.41-4.90], p