4.3 Article

Impacts of local public smoking bans on smoking behaviors and tobacco smoke exposure

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 1719-1744

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hec.4280

关键词

public smoking bans; smoking behavior; tobacco smoke exposure

资金

  1. Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy in Buenos Aires, Argentina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that full smoking bans can reduce national smoking prevalence over time, especially among younger demographic groups, and also decrease environmental tobacco smoke exposure for nonsmokers. However, full bans have no significant impact on smoking intensity among smokers. Partial bans do not significantly affect smoking prevalence, and may even increase smoking intensity among daily smokers.
This paper examines the immediate and long-term effects of public smoking bans on smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, smoking intensity, and secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. We supplement the extensive literature on the effects of various types of tobacco control legislation on smoking behavior in developed countries by studying the provincial smoking bans and more recent national ban of a middle-income country, Argentina. We focus on the difference between full and partial smoking bans, and take advantage of the time and province variation in ban implementation in order to determine the causal effects of each type of ban. We find that full bans reduce national smoking prevalence over time, especially among younger demographic groups, but have no significant impact on intensity of smoking among smokers. Full bans also benefit nonsmokers, as they are associated with a significant reduction in environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Partial bans do not significantly impact smoking prevalence, and are found to increase smoking intensity among individuals who smoke every day. These findings provide support for ratification of full bans by all provinces according to the National Tobacco Control Law of 2011.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据