Discrete choice experiment reveals trade-offs influencing smoking cessation behavior in low dependence smokers, suggesting key demographic factors.
Smoking is one of the major factors of morbidity and mortality in the world. The main causes of death of smokers are extensive chronic diseases. The proportion of smokers in Indonesia is 28.96%, especially in Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, the proportion of smokers is 24.54%. This study aims to determine what types of trade-offs in low dependence smokers choose to support smoking cessation and low dependence smokers’ preferences based on socio-demographic characteristics. Smokers in the Yogyakarta city were surveyed to elicit their preferences for, and trade-offs between the attributes of a hypothetical smoking cessation behavior. Preferences for price of cigarette, health impact, warning label, availability of support, and service provided were assessed using the discrete choice experiment method. The degree of dependence on nicotine assessed by using Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and self–administered questionnaires containing five attributes and levels based on trade-off is delivered. The data analyzed using binary logistic regression test. The results of binary logistic regression analysis showed that most respondents were affected by marital status, recent education, occupation, the place where the respondent was smoked, and the history of quitting smoking in choosing the choice set. Most respondents chose choice set with the price of cigarettes around IDR 25,000-30,000; cancer which is a side effect of smoking that they afraid of, the effect of warning labels and support from neighborhood, and they prefer assistance from health services in the form of drugs to support them to stop smoking. The results of this study is that respondents tend to prefer factors that make them easier and faster in supporting smoking cessation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dwinta et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: