Nina C Schleicher1, Trent O Johnson2, Heather D'Angelo3, Douglas A Luke4, Kurt M Ribisl5, Lisa Henriksen6. 1. Research Statistician, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Palo Alto, CA. 2. Manager, Tobacco Control Policy Studies, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Palo Alto, CA. 3. Doctoral Student, Gillings Global School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Professor and Director, Center for Public Health Systems Science, Washington University in St. Louis. 5. Professor, Gillings Global School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. 6. Senior Research Scientist, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Researchers and regulators study the advertised price of tobacco products to evaluate compliance with minimum price policies, tax increases, and geodemographic marketing. However, few studies report reliability of advertised price and none address its concordance with receipt price. METHODS: In a sample of US tobacco retailers (N=1972), data collectors purchased the leading brand of non-menthol or menthol cigarettes, recorded advertised prices, whether sales tax was included and price was discounted. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed for the same measures by different observers (reliability), and for receipt and advertised pack price (validity). Discrepancy between receipt and advertised price was modeled as a function of store type and presence of a discount. RESULTS: Advertised price was assessed reliably (ICCs = 0.74 to 0.87) and concordance with receipt price was near perfect (ICCs = 0.96 to 1.00). Prices were identical in 77.7% of stores for Marlboro and 78.1% for Newport. Differences between receipt and advertised price were related to store type and presence of a discount for Marlboro, but not for Newport. CONCLUSIONS: Findings validate a common measure of cigarette price in research on minimum price compliance, effects of tax increase and industry marketing.
OBJECTIVES: Researchers and regulators study the advertised price of tobacco products to evaluate compliance with minimum price policies, tax increases, and geodemographic marketing. However, few studies report reliability of advertised price and none address its concordance with receipt price. METHODS: In a sample of US tobacco retailers (N=1972), data collectors purchased the leading brand of non-menthol or menthol cigarettes, recorded advertised prices, whether sales tax was included and price was discounted. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed for the same measures by different observers (reliability), and for receipt and advertised pack price (validity). Discrepancy between receipt and advertised price was modeled as a function of store type and presence of a discount. RESULTS: Advertised price was assessed reliably (ICCs = 0.74 to 0.87) and concordance with receipt price was near perfect (ICCs = 0.96 to 1.00). Prices were identical in 77.7% of stores for Marlboro and 78.1% for Newport. Differences between receipt and advertised price were related to store type and presence of a discount for Marlboro, but not for Newport. CONCLUSIONS: Findings validate a common measure of cigarette price in research on minimum price compliance, effects of tax increase and industry marketing.
Authors: Angela D Liese; Natalie Colabianchi; Archana P Lamichhane; Timothy L Barnes; James D Hibbert; Dwayne E Porter; Michele D Nichols; Andrew B Lawson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Traci L Toomey; Vincent Chen; Jean L Forster; Pam Van Coevering; Kathleen M Lenk Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Sarah D Mills; Shelley D Golden; Lisa Henriksen; Amanda Y Kong; Tara L Queen; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Lisa Henriksen; Nina C Schleicher; Trent O Johnson; Elizabeth Andersen-Rodgers; Xueying Zhang; Rebecca Williams Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2019-11
Authors: Ilana G Raskind; Monika Vishwakarma; Nina C Schleicher; Elizabeth Andersen-Rodgers; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 7.552