Bryan W Heckman1, K Michael Cummings1, Alexander A Hirsch1, Amanda J Quisenberry2, Ron Borland3, Richard J O'Connor4, Geoffrey T Fong5, Warren K Bickel6. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2. Health Behavior and Health Promotion, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, Charleston, SC. 3. Nigel Gray Fellowship Group, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, AU. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, CA. 6. Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study tests the substitutability of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), electronic cigarettes (ECs), and very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) in the context of an online experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM) that was designed to mimic the choices of smokers under 4 policy scenarios. METHODS: Dutch cigarette smokers (N = 840) completed an online survey in July 2015. The ETM was comprised of conventional cigarettes, VLNCs, ECs (disposable/cartridge/tank systems), and NRT (lozenges/patches/tabs). All participants completed a scenario in which conventional cigarettes were banned. To test additional policy scenarios participants were randomized to one of 3 experiments: 1) no VLNCs, 2) all products available, or 3) no ECs. Hypothetical weekly purchases were made when the cost for conventional cigarettes was ½ market price (MP), MP, 2x MP, and 4x MP. Substitutability was measured by the change in estimated consumption as cigarette prices increased. RESULTS: Tank and cartridge ECs and VLNCs were stronger cigarette substitutes than disposable ECs and NRT products. Substitution of ECs and NRT for cigarettes was dampened when VLNCs were available. CONCLUSIONS: The ETM offers a method to predict how smokers might respond to policies that alter the availability of potentially substitutable products available in the marketplace.
OBJECTIVES: The current study tests the substitutability of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), electronic cigarettes (ECs), and very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) in the context of an online experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM) that was designed to mimic the choices of smokers under 4 policy scenarios. METHODS: Dutch cigarette smokers (N = 840) completed an online survey in July 2015. The ETM was comprised of conventional cigarettes, VLNCs, ECs (disposable/cartridge/tank systems), and NRT (lozenges/patches/tabs). All participants completed a scenario in which conventional cigarettes were banned. To test additional policy scenarios participants were randomized to one of 3 experiments: 1) no VLNCs, 2) all products available, or 3) no ECs. Hypothetical weekly purchases were made when the cost for conventional cigarettes was ½ market price (MP), MP, 2x MP, and 4x MP. Substitutability was measured by the change in estimated consumption as cigarette prices increased. RESULTS: Tank and cartridge ECs and VLNCs were stronger cigarette substitutes than disposable ECs and NRT products. Substitution of ECs and NRT for cigarettes was dampened when VLNCs were available. CONCLUSIONS: The ETM offers a method to predict how smokers might respond to policies that alter the availability of potentially substitutable products available in the marketplace.
Authors: James MacKillop; James G Murphy; Lara A Ray; Daniel T A Eisenberg; Stephen A Lisman; J Koji Lum; David S Wilson Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Amanda J Quisenberry; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Laura E Hatz; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; Sara Hitchman; Richard J O'Connor; Warren K Bickel; Jeffrey S Stein; Hua-Hie Yong; Georges J Nahhas; Derek A Pope; Ce Shang; Kai-Wen Cheng; David T Levy; K Michael Cummings Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Mahathi Vojjala; Jennifer Cantrell; David T Levy; Daniel P Giovenco; David Abrams; Raymond Niaura Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Dana Mowls Carroll; Lori Strayer; Natalie Nardone; Lauren R Pacek; Rachel V Kozink; Katelyn Tessier; Joseph McClernon; Neal Benowitz; Warren K Bickel; Dorothy Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Derek A Pope; Lindsey Poe; Jeffrey S Stein; Brent A Kaplan; William B DeHart; Alexandra M Mellis; Bryan W Heckman; Leonard H Epstein; Frank J Chaloupka; Warren K Bickel Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Roberta Freitas-Lemos; Allison N Tegge; William H Craft; Devin C Tomlinson; Jeffrey S Stein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Roberta Freitas-Lemos; Allison N Tegge; Jeffrey S Stein; William Brady DeHart; Sarah A Reisinger; Peter G Shields; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Warren K Bickel Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 4.591
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Brian V Fix; Ann McNeill; Maciej L Goniewicz; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Sara Hitchman; Ron Borland; David Hammond; David Levy; Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Bryan W Heckman; Jennifer W Tidey; Suzanne M Colby; K Michael Cummings Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244