Szklo André Salem, Iglesias Roberto Magno, Stoklosa Michal, Figueiredo Valeska Carvalho, Welding Kevin, de Souza Junior Paulo Roberto Borges, Machado Alessandra Trindade, Martins Luis Felipe Leite, Nascimento Hannah, Drope Jeffrey
Population Research Unit, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Fiscal Policies For Health, Health Promotion Department, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
Tob Control. 2022 Jan;31(1):73-80. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056060. Epub 2020 Nov 13.
To cross-validate estimates of the size of the illicit cigarette trade based on the results of four different survey methods.
In 2018/2019, four non-industry-funded, large-scale studies were conducted in selected Brazilian cities: packs discarded in household garbage/PDG (1 city), packs littered in the streets/PLS (5 cities), a phone survey of tobacco users' purchase behaviors/VIGITEL (5 cities), and a face-to-face household survey of tobacco users' purchase behaviors/FTF-household (2 cities). The proportions of illicit cigarettes consumed were based on the price paid by smokers in their last purchase (VIGITEL or FTF-household) and/or direct observation of brand names and health warnings (PDG, PLS or FTF-household).
Based on PLS, the share of packs that avoided taxation ranged from 30.4% (95% CI 25.6% to 35.7%) in Rio de Janeiro to 70.1% (95% CI 64.6% to 75.0%) in Campo Grande; and PDG conducted in Rio de Janeiro found an even lower proportion point estimate of illicit cigarette use (26.8%, 95% CI 25.1% to 28.6%). In FTF-household, the share of illicit cigarette consumption based on the self-reported price ranged from 29.1% (95% CI 22.4% to 35.7%) in Rio de Janeiro to 37.5% (95% CI 31.2% to 43.7%) in São Paulo, while estimates based on pack observation ranged from 29.9% (95% CI 23.3% to 36.5%) in Rio de Janeiro to 40.7% (95% CI 34.3% to 47.0%) in São Paulo. For all cities, VIGITEL presented the lowest levels of illicit consumption, and most illicit brands were produced in Paraguay.
Small differences in the estimated levels of illicit trade across methods were found, except for the phone survey. The cross-validation of estimates from independent studies is important to help effectively implement tobacco excise tax policy in Brazil and other low-income and middle-income countries.
基于四种不同调查方法的结果,对非法卷烟贸易规模的估计进行交叉验证。
2018/2019年,在巴西选定城市开展了四项非行业资助的大规模研究:对家庭垃圾中丢弃的烟包进行调查/PDG(1个城市)、对街道上乱扔的烟包进行调查/PLS(5个城市)、对烟草使用者购买行为进行电话调查/VIGITEL(5个城市)以及对烟草使用者购买行为进行面对面家庭调查/FTF-家庭(2个城市)。非法卷烟消费比例基于吸烟者上次购买支付的价格(VIGITEL或FTF-家庭)和/或对品牌名称及健康警示的直接观察(PDG、PLS或FTF-家庭)。
基于PLS,逃避征税的烟包比例在里约热内卢为30.4%(95%置信区间25.6%至35.7%),在大坎普为70.1%(95%置信区间64.6%至75.0%);在里约热内卢进行的PDG发现非法卷烟使用的点估计比例更低(26.8%,95%置信区间25.1%至28.6%)。在FTF-家庭中,基于自我报告价格的非法卷烟消费比例在里约热内卢为29.1%(95%置信区间22.4%至35.7%),在圣保罗为37.5%(95%置信区间31.2%至43.7%),而基于烟包观察的估计在里约热内卢为29.9%(95%置信区间23.3%至36.5%),在圣保罗为40.7%(95%置信区间34.3%至47.0%)。对于所有城市,VIGITEL呈现出最低的非法消费水平,且大多数非法品牌产自巴拉圭。
除电话调查外,各方法估计的非法贸易水平存在细微差异。对独立研究估计值进行交叉验证,对于帮助巴西及其他低收入和中等收入国家有效实施烟草消费税政策至关重要。