Impact of vaping restrictions in public places on smoking and vaping in the United States—evidence using a difference‐in‐differences approach.
Saved in:
| Title: | Impact of vaping restrictions in public places on smoking and vaping in the United States—evidence using a difference‐in‐differences approach. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Cheng, Kai‐Wen, Liu, Feng, Pesko, Michael F., Levy, David T., Fong, Geoffrey T., Cummings, K. Michael |
| Source: | Addiction. Jan2023, Vol. 118 Issue 1, p160-166. 7p. 4 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Smoking laws, Work environment, Electronic cigarettes, Scientific observation, Confidence intervals, Government regulation, Restaurants, Public spaces, Descriptive statistics, Smoking, Statistical models, Probability theory, Adults |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | Aims: To estimate whether and to what extent extending indoor smoking restrictions to include electronic cigarettes (ECs) impact the use of ECs and cigarette smoking among adults in the United States. Design: Observational study using a linear probability model and applying a difference‐in‐differences analysis. Setting: United States. Participants: People aged 18–54 who lived in US counties where comprehensive indoor smoking laws in bars, restaurants and private work‐places have been in place prior to 2010 (n = 45 111 for EC use analysis, n = 75 959 for cigarette use analysis). Measurements Data on cigarette smoking, use of ECs and place of residence from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey (TUS‐CPS 2010–11, 2014–15 and 2018–19) were combined with the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANRF) database of state and local indoor smoking and vaping restriction laws. Findings Indoor vaping restriction (IVR) coverage was not significantly associated with the likelihood of adult EC use [coefficient estimate = 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.009, 0.013, P‐value = 0.783]. In addition, IVR coverage was not significantly associated with adult cigarette smoking (coefficient estimate = −0.00; 95% CI = −0.016, 0.015, P‐value = 0.954). The non‐significant results appeared in different socio‐demographic subgroups. Conclusions: IVRs do not appear to decrease electronic cigarette use among US adults. There is no evidence that IVRs increase or decrease cigarette smoking among US adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Addiction is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Aims: To estimate whether and to what extent extending indoor smoking restrictions to include electronic cigarettes (ECs) impact the use of ECs and cigarette smoking among adults in the United States. Design: Observational study using a linear probability model and applying a difference‐in‐differences analysis. Setting: United States. Participants: People aged 18–54 who lived in US counties where comprehensive indoor smoking laws in bars, restaurants and private work‐places have been in place prior to 2010 (n = 45 111 for EC use analysis, n = 75 959 for cigarette use analysis). Measurements Data on cigarette smoking, use of ECs and place of residence from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey (TUS‐CPS 2010–11, 2014–15 and 2018–19) were combined with the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANRF) database of state and local indoor smoking and vaping restriction laws. Findings Indoor vaping restriction (IVR) coverage was not significantly associated with the likelihood of adult EC use [coefficient estimate = 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.009, 0.013, P‐value = 0.783]. In addition, IVR coverage was not significantly associated with adult cigarette smoking (coefficient estimate = −0.00; 95% CI = −0.016, 0.015, P‐value = 0.954). The non‐significant results appeared in different socio‐demographic subgroups. Conclusions: IVRs do not appear to decrease electronic cigarette use among US adults. There is no evidence that IVRs increase or decrease cigarette smoking among US adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09652140 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/add.16039 |
