Impact of price and non-price policies on household cigarette consumption and nutrient intake in smoking-tolerant Indonesia. Issue 1 (18th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Djutaharta, Triasih; Nachrowi, Nachrowi Djalal; Ananta, Aris; Martianto, Drajat
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 11:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01-18
• Subjects: health economics -- public health -- nutrition & dietetics; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039211
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To examine the impact of cigarette price and smoking environment on allocation of household expenditure and its implication on nutrition consumption. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the 2014 National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS), the 2014 Village Potential Survey (PODES) and the 2013 Basic National Health Survey (RISKESDAS). SUSENAS and PODES data were collected by the Central Bureau of Statistics. RISKESDAS was conducted by National Institute of Health Research and Development (Balitbangkes), Indonesian Ministry of Health (MOH). Setting and participants: The sample covered all districts in Indonesia; with sample size of 285 400 households. These households are grouped into low, medium and high smoking prevalence districts. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The impact of cigarette price and smoking environment on household consumption of cigarette, share of eight food groups, as well as calorie and protein intake. Result: 1% increase in cigarette price will increase the cigarette budget share by 0.0737 points and reduce the budget share for eggs/milk, prepared food, staple food, nuts, fish/meat and fruit, from 0.0200 points (eggs/milk) up to 0.0033 points (fruit). Reallocation of household expenditure brings changes in food composition, resulting in declining calorie and protein intake. A 1% cigarette price increase reduces calorie and protein intake as much as 0.0885% and 0.1052%, respectively. On the other hand, existence of smoke-free areas and low smoking prevalence areas reduces the household budget for cigarettes. Conclusion: A pricing policy must be accompanied by non-pricing policies to reduce cigarette budget share.