Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34644338›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Tobacco price and use following California Proposition 56 tobacco tax increase.

Christian Gunadi, Tarik Benmarhnia, Martha White, John P Pierce, Sara B McMenamin, Eric C Leas, Yuyan Shi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Christian GunadiHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Tarik BenmarhniaHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Martha WhiteHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1844-5545
John P PierceHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0075-7471
Sara B McMenaminHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Eric C LeasHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Yuyan ShiHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9293-0659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

CaliforniaHumansPrevalenceTaxesTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsTobacco, SmokelessTobacco Use

Identifiers

PMID34644338
PMCPMC8513910

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.