Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952270›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2021

Effect of Massachusetts House Bill No. 4196 on electronic cigarette use: a mixed-methods study.

Amanda Katchmar, Adrian Gunawan, Michael Siegel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Responses to Real-World and Hypothetical E-Cigarette Flavor Bans Among US Young Adults Who Use Flavored E-Cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  7. Cross-State Border Nicotine Vaping Products Purchase-Early Evidence From State Emergency Sales Restrictions in 2019.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  8. A Patchy Prohibition: Product and Flavor Substitution After the Food and Drug Administration's Prioritized Enforcement Policy on Flavored E-cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amanda KatchmarSchool of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. katchmar@bu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8404-8030
Adrian GunawanBoston University School of Medicine, 72 E Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Michael SiegelSchool of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are devices that deliver nicotine-containing aerosol and were used by 2.8% of American adults in 2017. Many people who smoke cigarettes have used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, and the general consensus among health providers is that while vaping is not harmless, it is less harmful than smoking. To try to reduce youth e-cigarette use, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposed a 75% excise tax on nicotine-containing vaping products and banned the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including combustible tobacco, effective June 1, 2020. This tax, like similar taxes in other states, aimed to reduce e-cigarette consumption. However, past research has found that e-cigarettes and cigarettes are economic substitutes, meaning that an increase in e-cigarettes prices may push more people who smoke e-cigarettes to smoke combustible cigarettes.

methodsTo determine the impacts of several events, such as the e-cigarette and vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak and implementation of the Massachusetts e-cigarette tax, on e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing, we conducted an interrupted time-series analysis of year-on-year consumer purchasing data to impute changes in e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing in the Greater Boston area and the entire USA after several intervention points. We then surveyed a subset of people who used e-cigarettes to evaluate the plausibility that some e-cigarette consumers would travel out-of-state to purchase e-cigarettes.

resultsThe purchasing data indicated that there was no significant decrease in e-cigarette purchases in the Greater Boston convenience market after tax implementation. However, we found that e-cigarette purchases decreased significantly while cigarette purchases increased after several bans on e-cigarettes and numerous policy statements related to the EVALI outbreak. The survey results suggested that people who smoke e-cigarettes did not decrease their consumption after the implementation of the tax, but instead obtained e-cigarettes outside of Massachusetts.

conclusionThese results suggest that the Massachusetts flavor ban and tax did not reduce e-cigarette consumption in the Greater Boston area, and that messaging questioning the safety of e-cigarettes led to an increase in combustible cigarette use. This suggests the need for health authorities to reconsider how they communicate the relative risks of smoking and vaping.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentAdultHumansMassachusettsTaxesUnited StatesE-cigarettesPolicySmoking tobaccoTaxationVaping

Identifiers

PMID33952270
PMCPMC8097113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.