Tax increases as an incentive to quit smoking: is thinking about quitting due to a tobacco tax increase associated with post-tax increase smoking cessation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cost of tobacco is one of the most reported reasons to quit smoking. The Netherlands increased tobacco taxes twice in the span of nine months: a €1 increase per pack in April 2020, and a €0.12 increase per pack in January 2021. This study examines to what extent people report to think about quitting due to the upcoming tax increase(s), as well as how it relates to their age, income or educational level. Additionally, we examined whether thinking about quitting was associated with quit intention and quit behaviour, and whether these associations were different for the two tax increases. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Surveys, Cohort 2 were used (N = 5919 observations; wave 1 (February - March 2020): n = 2051; wave 2 (September - November 2020): n = 1919; wave 3 (June - July 2021): n = 1949). Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) regressions were fit to test the associations between thinking about quitting due to the tax increase and post-tax increases in quit intention, serious quit attempts, and quitting smoking (≤ 1 cigarette a month), as well as sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Circa half of the people who smoke reported thinking about quitting smoking due to the upcoming tax increase (Wave 1 = 51.3% (n = 1052); Wave 2 = 47.3% (n = 849)). Individuals who reported thinking about quitting smoking due to upcoming tax increase(s) were more likely to have increased their quit intention (aOR: 2.00, p ≤ .001) or have carried out a serious quit attempt (aOR:1.48, p ≤ .001) post-tax increase. More people attempted to quit smoking between wave 2 and 3 (post 2021 increase) than between wave 1 and 2 (post 2020 increase). We did not find an interaction effect between wave and thinking about quitting for quit intention, quit attempts, and quitting smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Tax increases stimulate people to think about quitting. Thinking about quitting due to an upcoming tax increase was associated with more positive quit intention and serious quit attempts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".