CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyEconomic and Fiscal Studies

Smoking prevalence following tobacco tax increases in Australia between 2001 and 2017: an interrupted time-series analysis

Open access
Wilkinson, Anna L, Scollo, Michelle M, Wakefield, Melanie A, Spittal, Matthew J, Chaloupka, Frank J, Durkin, Sarah J·2019·The Lancet Public Health
DOI 10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30203-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Building on substantial tobacco control action over the previous decade, Australia increased the taxes on tobacco by 25% without forewarning on April 30, 2010. Australia then became one of a few countries to pre-announce a series of increases in tobacco taxes, with annual 12·5% increases starting from December, 2013. We aimed to examine the effects of both tax increases on smoking prevalence. METHODS: By use of survey data from Australians aged 14 years and older in five capital cities, we did an interrupted time-series analysis to model the monthly prevalence of smoking (overall, of factory-made cigarettes [FMC], and of roll-your-own tobacco [RYO]), in the total sample and stratified by socioeconomic status subgroups. We measured outcomes in May, 2001-April, 2010; May, 2010-November, 2013; and December, 2013-April, 2017. FINDINGS: The 25% tax increase was associated with immediate (-0·745 percentage points; 95% CI -1·378 to -0·112) and sustained reductions in prevalence (monthly trend -0·023 percentage points; -0·044 to -0·003), which were driven by reductions in the prevalence of smoking of FMC. The prevalence of smoking of RYO increased between May, 2010, and November, 2013, after the 25% tax increase. At the start of the pre-announced annual 12·5% increases, we observed an immediate reduction in smoking (-0·997 percentage points; -1·632 to -0·362), followed by decreasing overall prevalence (monthly trend -0·044 percentage points; -0·063 to -0·026) due to ongoing decreases in the prevalence of FMC smoking and a cessation of increases in the prevalence of smoking of RYO. Immediate decreases in smoking and changing trends in the prevalence of smoking of RYO were most evident among groups with a lower socioeconomic status. INTERPRETATION: Large tax increases are effective in reducing smoking prevalence, both as a single increase without forewarning and as a pre-announced series of increases. However, taxes on tobacco are best structured to apply equally to FMC and RYO products. Tobacco control policies should prohibit price marketing that otherwise erodes the full impact of such tax increases. FUNDING: Cancer Council Victoria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30203-8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The two measures most associated with reductions in tobacco use are increasing taxes and discussing SHS exposure, especially among children.

    “The evaluation of antitobacco legislation and campaigns has shown that the 2 measures that are most associated with reductions in tobacco use are increasing taxes and discussing SHS exposure, especially among children.17,18”

    From Estimated Worldwide Mortality Attributed to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure, 1990-2016 (2020) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results and Discussion report reductions in Australian smoking prevalence associated with tobacco tax increases. The paper does not establish that taxes and discussion of secondhand-smoke exposure are the two measures most associated with reduced tobacco use; the passages retrieved for secondhand-smoke exposure, including exposure among children, do not address that measure. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Fong GT. Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control 2012; 21: 172-80.
  2. Scollo M, Bayly M, White S, Lindorff K, Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments in the Australian market in the 4 years following plain packaging. Tob Control 2018; 27: 580-84.
  3. Gilmore AB, Tavakoly B, Taylor G, Reed H. Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategy and whether it undermines tobacco tax policy: the example of the UK cigarette market. Addiction 2013; 108: 1317-26.
  4. Marsh L, Cameron C, Quigg R, et al. The impact of an increase in excise tax on the retail price of tobacco in New Zealand. Tob Control 2016; 25: 458-63.
  5. Licht AS, Hyland AJ, O'Connor RJ, et al. Socio-economic variation in price minimizing behaviors: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) four country survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011; 8: 234-52.
  6. Wilkinson AL, Scollo M, Durkin SJ, et al. Indexation of tobacco excise and customs duty and smoking prevalence among Australian adults, 2001-2010: a serial cross-sectional study. Nicotine Tob Res 2019; 21: 293-99.
  7. Walton D, Li J, Newcombe R, Tu D, Berentson-Shaw J. Smokers' behavioural responses before and after the 2012 tobacco excise increase. Kotuitui 2013; 8: 27-39.
  8. Li J, Newcombe R, Guiney H, Walton D. Impact on smoking behaviour of the New Zealand annual increase in tobacco tax: data for the 5th and 6th year of increases. Nicotine Tob Res 2017; 19: 1491-98.
  9. Chaloupka F. Rational addictive behaviour and cigarette smoking. J Polit Econ 1991; 99: 722-42.
  10. Becker GS, Murphy KM. A theory of rational addiction. J Polit Econ 1988; 96: 675-700.
  11. Harwell TS, Lee L, Haugland C, et al. Utilization of a tobacco quit line prior to and after a tobacco tax increase. J Public Health Manag Pract 2007; 13: 637-41.
  12. Tabuchi T, Fukui K, Gallus S. Tobacco price increases and population interest in smoking cessation in Japan between 2004 and 2016: a Google Trends analysis. Nicotine Tob Res 2019; 21: 475-80.
  13. Dunlop SM, Cotter TF, Perez DA. Impact of the 2010 tobacco tax increase in Australia on short-term smoking cessation: a continuous tracking survey. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 469-72.
  14. Lopez Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46: 348-55.
  15. Ma ZQ, Kuller LH, Fisher MA, Ostroff SM. Use of interrupted time-series method to evaluate the impact of cigarette excise tax increases in Pennsylvania, 2000-2009. Prev Chronic Dis 2013; 10: e169.
  16. Dono J, Bowden J, Kim S, Miller C. Taking the pressure off the spring: the case of rebounding smoking rates when antitobacco campaigns ceased. Tob Control 2019; 28: 233-36.
  17. Scollo M, Bayly M. Chapter 13. The pricing and taxation of tobacco products in Australia. In: Scollo M, Winstanely M, eds. Tobacco in Australia: facts and issues. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cancer Council Victoria, 2018.
  18. Linden A. Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single-and multiple-group comparisons. Stata J 2015; 15: 480-500.
  19. Wakefield MA, Coomber K, Durkin SJ, et al. Time series analysis of the impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence among Australian adults, 2001-2011. Bull World Health Organ 2014; 92: 413-22.
  20. Bayly M, Scollo MM, Wakefield MA. Who uses rollies? Trends in product offerings, price and use of roll-your-own tobacco in Australia. Tob Control 2019; 28: 317-24.
  21. Hiscock R, Branston JR, McNeill A, Hitchman SC, Partos TR, Gilmore AB. Tobacco industry strategies undermine government tax policy: evidence from commercial data. Tob Control 2017; 27: 488-97.
  22. Wilkinson, A. L., Scollo, M. M., Wakefield, M. A., Spittal, M. J., Chaloupka, F. J. & Durkin, S. J. (2019). Smoking prevalence following tobacco tax increases in Australia between 2001 and 2017: an interrupted time-series analysis. LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH, 4 (12), pp.E618- E627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30203-8. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290383 License: CC BY

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkinson, A. L., Scollo, M. M., Wakefield, M. A., Spittal, M. J., Chaloupka, F. J., & Durkin, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Council Victoria (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Durkin, Sarah J
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
4
Issue
12
Pages
e618-e627
ISSN
2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30203-8
OpenAlex
W2990941423
Cited by
83
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
6.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Cancer Council Victoria
  • Australian Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Fiscal Studies
Keywords
tobacco taxation, smoking prevalence, tobacco control, roll-your-own tobacco, socioeconomic disparities, smoking cessation, Australia, United States
MeSH terms
Tobacco Smoking, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Australia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Socioeconomic Factors, Taxes, Smoking Cessation, Young Adult, Tobacco Products, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review