Design Tiered Tax Rates for Electronic Cigarettes (ECs) Based on Their Appeals to Youth and Young Adults
Design Tiered Tax Rates for Electronic Cigarettes (ECs) Based on Their Appeals to Youth and Young Adults
This clinical trial studies whether imposing higher taxes and bans on electronic cigarettes (EC) with appealing features impacts tobacco use among current and susceptible adolescents and young adults (AYA) EC users and adults who use EC or are open to EC use. ECs are currently the most popular form of nicotine or tobacco product in the United States. Compared to burned cigarette products, ECs generally pose fewer short-term harms, making them a promising tool for lowering users' exposure to toxins and cancer-causing chemicals from smoking, promoting better public health outcomes. However, evidence shows that EC marketing has increased overall initiation into nicotine use among AYAs, and that EC users are at a higher risk of becoming smokers, which could have negative public health outcomes. Therefore, understanding the public health impact of EC use and regulation remains a major goal in tobacco control research. This trial studies different scenarios which impose higher taxes or bans on ECs with appealing features. Researchers hope that by studying participant responses to the different scenarios they may be able to identify which ones best discourage EC use among AYAs while promoting adult EC users to quit smoking, which may improve public health.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:
I. Provide empirical evidence on how tiered EC taxes - imposing higher taxes on ECs with AYA appealing features - impact EC use, combustible tobacco use, and the prevalence of cross-border or illegal purchases.
II. Examine how tiered taxes on AYA-appealing features (flavors, product type, nicotine concentration) impact EC use and combustible tobacco smoking among current and susceptible AYA EC users. (Aim 1) III. Assess how tiered taxes on AYA-appealing features impact EC and combustible tobacco smoking among adult smokers who either use or are open to using ECs. (Aim 2) IV. Compare tiered EC taxes with sales bans on ECs with AYA-appealing features in terms of their impacts on tobacco use, cross-border shopping, and illegal EC purchases. (Aim 3)
OUTLINE: Participants are assigned to 1 of 3 aims.
AIMS 1 & 2: Participants complete volumetric choice experiments (VCEs) over 20 minutes on study with random assignment to: 1) Nicotine levels (low versus [vs.] high); 2) Flavors (fruit/sweet vs. ice vs. menthol/mint vs. tobacco); 3) EC tax bases (by product type vs. by flavor vs. by nicotine concentration), and 4) rate levels (status quo [equal rates] vs. 50% higher vs. 100% higher vs. 200% higher) among six different products (tanks, pods, disposables, cigarettes, cigars, and oral nicotine pouches [ONPs]) and opt-out options (none of the six products or quitting).
AIM 3: Participants are randomized to 1 of 2 groups.
GROUP 1: Participants complete VCEs over 20 minutes on study with random assignment to: 1) nicotine levels (low versus vs. high) and 2) flavors (fruit/sweet vs. ice vs. menthol/mint vs. tobacco) with optimal tiered tax conditions among four different products (preferred EC type, cigarettes, cigars, ONPs) and opt-out options (none of the six products or quitting).
GROUP 2: Participants complete VCEs over 20 minutes on study with random assignment to: 1) nicotine levels (low versus vs. high), 2) flavors (fruit/sweet vs. ice vs. menthol/mint vs. tobacco), and 3) purchasing sources (out-of-state legal vs. local/online illegal, vs. local legal) with banned conditions among four different products (preferred EC type, cigarettes, cigars, ONPs) and opt-out options (none of the six products or quitting).
Inclusion Criteria:
OSUCCCClinicaltrials@osumc.edu800-293-5066