TY - JOUR
T1 - Behavioral Economic Purchase Tasks to Estimate Demand for Novel Nicotine/tobacco Products and Prospectively Predict Future Use
T2 - Evidence From The Netherlands
AU - Heckman, Bryan W.
AU - Cummings, K. Michael
AU - Nahas, Georges J.
AU - Willemsen, Marc C.
AU - O'Connor, Richard J.
AU - Borland, Ron
AU - Hirsch, Alexander A.
AU - Bickel, Warren K.
AU - Carpenter, Matthew J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers P01 CA138389 and CA200512 to KMC, K12 DA031794 and K23 DA041616 to BWH). The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit for publication.
Funding Information:
KMC has received grant funding from the Pfizer, Inc., to study the impact of a hospital based tobacco cessation intervention. KMC also receives funding as an expert witness in litigation filed against the tobacco industry. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/6
Y1 - 2019/6
N2 - Introduction The demand for alternative nicotine/tobacco products is not well established. This paper uses a behavioral economic approach to test whether smokers have differential demand for conventional factory-made, electronic, and very low nicotine content cigarettes (FMCs/ECs/VLNCs) and uses the prospective cohort design to test the predictive validity of demand indices on subsequent use of commercially available FMCs and ECs.Methods Daily smokers (>= 16 years) from the Netherlands completed an online survey in April 2014 (N = 1215). Purchase tasks were completed for FMCs, ECs, and VLNCs. Participants indicated the number of cigarettes they would consume in 24 h, across a range of prices (0-30 euro). The relationship between consumption and price was quantified into four indices of demand (intensity, Pmax, breakpoint, and essential value). A follow-up survey in July 2015 measured FMC and EC use.Results At baseline, greater demand was observed for FMCs relative to ECs and VLNCs across all demand indices, with no difference between ECs and VLNCs. At follow-up, greater baseline FMC demand (intensity, essential value) was associated with lower quit rates and higher relapse. EC demand (Pmax, breakpoint, essential value) was positively associated with any EC use between survey waves, past 30 day EC use, and EC purchase between waves.Conclusions Smokers valued FMCs more than ECs or VLNCs, and FMCs were less sensitive to price increases. Demand indices predicted use of commercially available products over a 15 month period. To serve as viable substitutes for FMCs, ECs and VLNCs will need to be priced lower than FMCs.Implications Purchase tasks can be adapted for novel nicotine/tobacco products as a means to efficiently quantify demand and predict use. Among current daily smokers, the demand for ECs and VLNCs is lower than FMCs.
AB - Introduction The demand for alternative nicotine/tobacco products is not well established. This paper uses a behavioral economic approach to test whether smokers have differential demand for conventional factory-made, electronic, and very low nicotine content cigarettes (FMCs/ECs/VLNCs) and uses the prospective cohort design to test the predictive validity of demand indices on subsequent use of commercially available FMCs and ECs.Methods Daily smokers (>= 16 years) from the Netherlands completed an online survey in April 2014 (N = 1215). Purchase tasks were completed for FMCs, ECs, and VLNCs. Participants indicated the number of cigarettes they would consume in 24 h, across a range of prices (0-30 euro). The relationship between consumption and price was quantified into four indices of demand (intensity, Pmax, breakpoint, and essential value). A follow-up survey in July 2015 measured FMC and EC use.Results At baseline, greater demand was observed for FMCs relative to ECs and VLNCs across all demand indices, with no difference between ECs and VLNCs. At follow-up, greater baseline FMC demand (intensity, essential value) was associated with lower quit rates and higher relapse. EC demand (Pmax, breakpoint, essential value) was positively associated with any EC use between survey waves, past 30 day EC use, and EC purchase between waves.Conclusions Smokers valued FMCs more than ECs or VLNCs, and FMCs were less sensitive to price increases. Demand indices predicted use of commercially available products over a 15 month period. To serve as viable substitutes for FMCs, ECs and VLNCs will need to be priced lower than FMCs.Implications Purchase tasks can be adapted for novel nicotine/tobacco products as a means to efficiently quantify demand and predict use. Among current daily smokers, the demand for ECs and VLNCs is lower than FMCs.
KW - RELATIVE REINFORCING EFFICACY
KW - CIGARETTE DEMAND
KW - SIMULATED DEMAND
KW - SMOKING
KW - TOBACCO
KW - PRICE
KW - CONSUMPTION
KW - DEPLETION
KW - VALIDITY
KW - IMPACT
U2 - 10.1093/ntr/nty042
DO - 10.1093/ntr/nty042
M3 - Article
SN - 1462-2203
VL - 21
SP - 784
EP - 791
JO - Nicotine & Tobacco Research
JF - Nicotine & Tobacco Research
IS - 6
ER -