Price minimizing behaviours by smokers in Europe (2006–20): evidence from the International Tobacco Control Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of tobacco taxation can be undermined through smokers applying price-minimizing behaviours rather than quitting or reducing consumption. Common price-minimizing strategies are buying cheaper tobacco [discount brands or roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco], bulk buying and cross-border purchasing. This study analyses trends in and factors associated with such behaviours in four European countries from 2006 to 2020. METHODS: Data came from adult smokers participating in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Surveys conducted between 2006 and 2020 in England (9 waves, n = 768-4149), France (4 waves, n = 1415-1735), Germany (5 waves, n = 513-1515) and the Netherlands (10 waves, n = 1191-2177). Country-specific generalized estimating equation regression models were fit to assess trends in smoking RYO tobacco, discount brands, bulk buying and cross-border purchasing within the European Union. RESULTS: Buying discount brands or RYO tobacco was the most common strategy in all countries, except France. Except for buying discount brands, estimates of price-minimizing behaviours were highest in France (2019: RYO = 27.2%, discount brands = 17.3%, bulk buying = 34.1%, cross-border purchasing = 34.2%), and lowest in Germany (2018: RYO = 18.6%, discount brands = 43.7%, bulk buying = 8.0%, cross-border purchasing = 9.8%). Direction and magnitude of trends differed by country, and behaviour. Young smokers were less likely to buy in bulk. Low-income and low-education smokers were more likely to purchase RYO tobacco or discount brands. The association with discount brands was not found for French low-income smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cheaper tobacco is the most prevalent price-minimizing strategy in three countries (England, Germany and Netherlands), and more prevalent among low-income individuals. Harmonizing prices across products and countries would reduce switching to cheaper tobacco.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".