ArticleBMJ public health2026
Assessing the demand for cigarettes and e-cigarettes among US adult e-cigarette users: a cross-sectional study using a demand system approach.
Article in BMJ 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The rapid growth of electronic cigarette (EC) use in the USA raises questions about their role in harm reduction and interaction with cigarettes. Understanding how adults who use ECs respond to price and expenditure changes is essential for effective tax policy. This study estimates own-price, cross-price and expenditure elasticities for cigarettes and ECs among US adults who use ECs using the Quadratic Almost Ideal Demand System (QUAIDS). Methods: We analysed a nationally representative sample of 771 US adults aged 18 and older who use ECs, including individuals who use both cigarettes and ECs (dual use) and those who use ECs exclusively. Demand for cigarettes and ECs was measured using budget shares from monthly expenditures and unit prices. A QUAIDS framework jointly estimated expenditure, own-price and cross-price elasticities. To address endogeneity, state-level cigarette and EC taxes served as instruments for prices and the tobacco expenditures of other respondents were used to instrument expenditure. Results: Among adults who use ECs, a 10% increase in tobacco expenditure is associated with a 17%-30% higher cigarette consumption and a 5%-8% higher EC consumption. Similarly, a 10% increase in cigarette prices is associated with a 13%-19% lower cigarette consumption while a 10% increase in EC prices is associated with a 7%-10% lower EC consumption. Cross-price elasticities are generally small and not statistically significant, indicating limited evidence that price changes in one product affect consumption of the other. Conclusions: Raising cigarette taxes may be associated with reduced smoking and increased EC use, while higher EC taxes are associated with lower EC consumption without raising smoking. However, additional income is more likely directed to cigarettes, suggesting coordinated taxes on both products may be needed. Future research should assess whether EC taxes raise smoking and whether cigarette taxes promote complete switching to ECs.
Indexed as
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.