Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36943027›Full record

ArticleEvaluation review2023

Impacts of Tax and Flavor Tobacco Policies on San Francisco Bay Area Tobacco Prices.

Vira Pravosud, Louisa M Holmes, Lauren K Lempert, Pamela M Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evaluation review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The Public Health Impacts of Flavored Cigar Bans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Vira PravosudCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Louisa M HolmesThe Pennsylvania State University, Departments of Geography and Demography, University Park, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5266-8385
Lauren K LempertCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5421-0263
Pamela M LingCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6166-9347

Funding

PROJECT 5: IMPACT OF CHANGING TOBACCO PRODUCT USE ON HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR GENERAL AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONSU54HL147127 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JACOB, PEYTON · 2018 to 2022
$20.4M
Understanding Smokeless Tobacco MarketingR01CA141661 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2009 to 2019
$5.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA141661NHLBI NIH HHS U54 HL147127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

California Proposition 56 increased the state tobacco tax by $2 per cigarette pack effective April 1, 2017. Between 2015-2020 San Francisco (SF) and some cities in Alameda County enacted local flavored tobacco sales restrictions. SF also increased its Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, from $0.20/pack in 2015 to $1.00 in 2020. Compare the change in tobacco prices before (2015) and after (2019/20) the implementation of a $2 increase in tobacco excise tax and local flavored tobacco policies in SF and Alameda Counties. Descriptive study of the pre-to-post policy analysis design. We drew a proportional random sample of retailers (N=463) in SF and Alameda Counties, by city. Using multivariable, single- and multiple-level linear regressions, we compared inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and by flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Change in inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Between 2015-2019/20, the increase in cigarette prices was higher than the $2 tax increase, and higher in SF than Alameda County (+$4.6 vs +$2.5). SF retailers stopped selling Newport menthol cigarettes and Blu brand menthol e-cigarettes in 2019/20. Adjusted average cigarette prices increased significantly more in SF and Alameda County cities with comprehensive or partial flavor policies versus cities without flavor policies (by $3.23 and $2.11). Local flavor policies affected menthol product availability and may have had positive spillover effects and indirectly increased pack prices.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsCommerceMentholSan FranciscoTaxesTobacco ControlMentholENDSflavorspreventiontax and policyTobacco control

Identifiers

PMID36943027
PMCPMC10542911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.