Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022
Impact of vaping restrictions in public places on smoking and vaping in the United States-evidence using a difference-in-differences approach.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cheng Kai-Wen, Liu Feng, Pesko Michael F, Levy David T, Fong Geoffrey T, Cummings K Michael
Аннотация
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.
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.