Search

Background: Increasing tobacco prices through taxation is very effective for reducing smoking prevalence and inequalities. For optimum effect, understanding how the tobacco industry and smokers respond is essential. Tobacco taxation changes occurred in the UK over the study period, including annual increases, a shift in structure from ad valorem to specific taxation and relatively higher increases on roll-your-own tobacco than on factory-made cigarettes. Objectives: Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategies in response to tax changes and the impact of tax on smokers’ behaviour, including tax evasion and avoidance, as well as the effect on smoking inequalities. Synthesising findings to inform how taxation can be improved as a public health intervention. Design: Qualitative analysis and evidence synthesis (commercial and Nielsen data) and longitudinal and aggregate cross-sectional analyses (International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project data). Setting: The UK, from 2002 to 2016. Data sources and participants: Data were from the tobacco industry commercial literature and retail tobacco sales data (Nielsen, New York, NY, USA). Participants were a longitudinal cohort (with replenishment) of smokers and ex-smokers from 10 surveys of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (around 1500 participants per survey). Main outcome measures: (1) Tobacco industry pricing strategies, (2) sales volumes and prices by segments over time and (3) smokers’ behaviours, including products purchased, sources, brands, consumption, quit attempts, success and sociodemographic differences. Review methods: Tobacco industry commercial literature was searched for mentions of tobacco products and price segments, with 517 articles extracted. Results: The tobacco industry increased prices on top of tax increases (overshifting), particularly on premium products, and, recently, the tobacco industry overshifted more on cheap roll-your-own tobacco than on factory-made cigarettes. Increasingly, price rises were from industry revenue generation rather than tax. The tobacco industry raised prices gradually to soften impact; this was less possible with larger tax increases. Budget measures to reduce cheap product availability failed due to new cheap factory-made products, price marking and small packs. In 2014, smokers could buy factory-made (roll-your-own tobacco) cigarettes at real prices similar to 2002. Exclusive roll-your-own tobacco and mixed factory-made cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco use increased, whereas exclusive factory-made cigarette use decreased, alongside increased cheap product use, rather than quitting. Quitting behaviours were associated with higher taxes. Smokers consumed fewer factory-made cigarettes and reduced roll-your-own tobacco weight over time. Apparent illicit purchasing did not increase. Disadvantaged and dependent smokers struggled with tobacco affordability and were more likely to smoke cheaper products, but disadvantage did not affect quit success. Limitations: Different for each data set; triangulation increased confidence. Conclusions: The tobacco industry overshifted taxes and increased revenues, even when tax increases were high. Therefore, tobacco taxes can be further increased to reduce price differentials and recoup public health costs. Government strategies on illicit tobacco appear effective. Large, sudden tax increases would reduce the industry’s ability to manipulate prices, decrease affordability and increase quitting behaviours. More disadvantaged, and dependent, smokers need more help with quitting. Future work: Assessing the impact of tax changes made since 2014; changing how tax changes are introduced (e.g. sudden intermittent or smaller continuous); and tax changes on tobacco initiation. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Smokers who start smoking at an early age are less likely to quit and more likely to die from their habit. Evidence from the US Truth® campaign suggests that interventions focusing on tobacco industry practices and ethics may be effective in preventing smoking uptake. Objectives: In an exploratory study, to develop, pilot and provide preliminary evidence of the acceptability and effectiveness of Operation Smoke Storm, a school-based intervention based on the premise of the Truth® campaign, to prevent smoking uptake. Design: Mixed-methods, non-randomised controlled study. Component 1 was delivered to Year 7 students, and student focus groups and teacher interviews were conducted to refine the lessons and to develop components 2 and 3. The revised Year 7 lessons and accompanying family booklet were delivered to new Year 7 students 1 year later in one school only; Year 8 students in both schools received the booster session. Setting and participants: Students in Years 7–8 (aged 11–13 years) in two UK schools. Intervention: A three-component intervention comprising (1) three 50-minute classroom-based sessions in Year 7 in which students acted as secret agents to uncover industry practices through videos, quizzes, discussions and presentations; (2) an accompanying family booklet containing activities designed to stimulate discussions about smoking between parents and students; and (3) a 1-hour interactive classroom-based booster session for Year 8 students, in which students learnt about tobacco marketing strategies from the perspectives of an industry executive, a marketing company and a health campaigner. Main outcome measures: Odds ratios to compare the self-reported prevalence of ever smoking and susceptibility to smoking in Year 8 students after the delivery of the booster session in study schools compared with students in local control schools. Qualitative data on acceptability of the intervention. Results: The combined prevalence of ever smoking and susceptibility increased from 18.2% in Year 7 to 33.8% in Year 8. After adjusting for confounders there was no significant difference in the odds of a Year 8 student in an intervention school being an ever smoker or susceptible never smoker compared with controls [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.97; p = 0.263] and no significant difference in the odds of ever smoking (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58; p = 0.549). Students mostly enjoyed the intervention and acquired new knowledge that appeared to strengthen their aversion to smoking. Teachers liked the ‘off-the-shelf’ nature of the resource, although they highlighted differences by academic ability in the extent to which students understood the messages being presented. Use of the family component was low but it was received positively by those parents who did engage with it. Limitations: Logistical difficulties meant that students’ responses in Year 7 and Year 8 could not be linked; however, baseline smoking behaviours differed little between intervention and control schools, and analyses were adjusted for confounders measured at follow-up. Conclusions: Operation Smoke Storm is an acceptable resource for delivering smoking-prevention education but it does not appear to have reduced smoking and susceptibility. Future work: The lack of a strong signal for potential effectiveness, considered alongside logistical difficulties in recruiting and working with schools, suggests that a fully powered cluster randomised trial of the intervention is not warranted. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme.