ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Economic and econometric methods to measure the illicit tobacco trade: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to identify suitable economic and econometric methods for measuring the illicit tobacco trade. We searched six key databases for public health and economics papers (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, EconLit, ABI/Inform, and Medline), two economic working paper platforms (SSRN and IDEAS), and grey literature via Google and expert-identified articles. Initial screening was undertaken by all authors, with at least three authors conducting a second screening and final paper selection. We included English-language papers (published from 2010 to July 2023) that applied economic or econometric models to illicit tobacco or related topics. We examined the methods, assessing their strengths and limitations from a health equity perspective, and evaluated their applicability to priority populations (rather than assessing the quality of individual models). The review included 39 studies: 16 applied consumption gap analysis (CGA), and 23 used other economic or econometric models (i.e., Exponentiated, Discrete Choice, Extended Cost-Benefit Analysis and A Static Partial Equilibrium, Consumption, Risk Prediction, A Forward-looking Behavioural, Integrated Micro-Macro Demand, Endogenous Switching Regression, Multiple and Non-Linear Regression, Dynamic Projection, Demand-driven Analytical, Econometric Regressions and Modelling and Two-way Fixed Effects models). CGA was primarily used to estimate the size and trends of the illicit tobacco market, whereas other models assessed and quantified past, existing, or potential behaviours related to engagement with tobacco and other products, including illicit tobacco. Only six of the 39 studies addressed health equity. Measuring the illicit tobacco trade is challenging due to its covert nature, methodological limitations, and scarce high-quality data. Method selection depends on the research objective: CGA is suitable for assessing national market trends but is limited in evaluating subpopulations or future policy impacts. Other non-CGA-based economic and econometric models are better for analysing or predicting user behaviour, including from a health equity perspective. Implications for public health: Measuring the illicit tobacco trade is challenging. This review identified a wide variety of economic or econometric methods on this topic and highlighted the need for a greater equity focus when applying these methods. Triangulating findings across the various methods is important moving forward.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.