OBJECTIVE: This paper aims at describing the behavior of tobacco's demand in Mexico across four one-year periods: 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998, as well as to estimate a cigarette demand function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study with longitudinal analysis was conducted. Information sources were the Encuesta Nacional de Ingreso y Gasto de los Hogares (ENIGH) (National Survey of Household Income and Spending) (NHSIS) and the tobacco pack prices reported by the Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor (Profeco) (Federal Office of Consumer's Protection) (FOCP). Spending, income, and prices were deflated to 1994 prices; the population was stratified into quintiles of real income, by rural and urban areas. Indicators of daily consumption of cigarettes and packs were constructed and prices per pack calculated. Adjusted prevalence figures were estimated. Logistic and linear regression models were used for statistical inference; a cigarette demand function was estimated using multivariate logistic regression, to find socioeconomic determinants of cigarette consumption. RESULTS: The adjusted prevalence of household tobacco spending fell from 22.4 to 9.9% between 1992 and 1998. Households allocated more than 4% of their income to tobacco consumption. A trend between income level and cigarette spending was observed, with the first quintile (the poorest population) allocated a greater share of their income than higher quintiles. The average daily consumption of cigarettes increased from 7.5 to 9.8 between 1992 and 1998. It was estimated that 90% of "smoker homes" consumed up to one package per day. The proportion of non-filter cigarettes increased from 0.4 to 4.8% between 1992-1998, with a bigger increase in 1996. Finally, it was found that the most important determinants of spending were prices and income. CONCLUSIONS: Policies focusing on tobacco prices would help to reduce tobacco consumption and improve the health of the Mexican population.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims at describing the behavior of tobacco's demand in Mexico across four one-year periods: 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998, as well as to estimate a cigarette demand function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study with longitudinal analysis was conducted. Information sources were the Encuesta Nacional de Ingreso y Gasto de los Hogares (ENIGH) (National Survey of Household Income and Spending) (NHSIS) and the tobacco pack prices reported by the Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor (Profeco) (Federal Office of Consumer's Protection) (FOCP). Spending, income, and prices were deflated to 1994 prices; the population was stratified into quintiles of real income, by rural and urban areas. Indicators of daily consumption of cigarettes and packs were constructed and prices per pack calculated. Adjusted prevalence figures were estimated. Logistic and linear regression models were used for statistical inference; a cigarette demand function was estimated using multivariate logistic regression, to find socioeconomic determinants of cigarette consumption. RESULTS: The adjusted prevalence of household tobacco spending fell from 22.4 to 9.9% between 1992 and 1998. Households allocated more than 4% of their income to tobacco consumption. A trend between income level and cigarette spending was observed, with the first quintile (the poorest population) allocated a greater share of their income than higher quintiles. The average daily consumption of cigarettes increased from 7.5 to 9.8 between 1992 and 1998. It was estimated that 90% of "smoker homes" consumed up to one package per day. The proportion of non-filter cigarettes increased from 0.4 to 4.8% between 1992-1998, with a bigger increase in 1996. Finally, it was found that the most important determinants of spending were prices and income. CONCLUSIONS: Policies focusing on tobacco prices would help to reduce tobacco consumption and improve the health of the Mexican population.
Authors: Belen Saenz-de-Miera; James F Thrasher; Frank J Chaloupka; Hugh R Waters; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 7.552