How do users compare the costs between nicotine vaping products and cigarettes? Findings from the 2016–2020 International Tobacco Control United States surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nicotine vaping products (NVPs) can potentially help adult tobacco users quit smoking. This study evaluated how adult consumers compare the costs between NVPs and cigarettes. METHOD: We used data from the US arm of the 2016-2020 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) surveys to perform a multinomial logit model with two-way fixed effects to measure how perceived cost comparisons are associated with NVP and cigarette taxes, use patterns, NVP device types and individual sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Higher cigarette taxes are associated with a greater likelihood of perceiving NVPs and cigarettes as costing the same for the overall population and among people who exclusively smoke, and a lower likelihood of perceiving NVPs as more expensive among people who exclusively vape, compared with lower cigarette taxes. Pre-filled cartridge and tank users are more likely to perceive NVPs as less expensive than cigarettes, compared with people who use other types of NVPs. The associations between taxes and perceived cost comparison were more pronounced among males, younger and low-income populations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher cigarette taxes are associated with perceived financial incentives for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) over cigarettes, whereas NVP taxes are not associated with perceived cost comparison between NVPs and cigarettes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".