Diana Weinhold1, Frank J Chaloupka2. 1. Department of International Development, London School of Economics, London, UK. 2. University of Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: A debate is currently underway about the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) methods for evaluating antitobacco regulation. In particular, the US government requires a cost-benefit analysis for significant new regulations, which has led the FDA to consider potential lost subjective well-being (SWB) of ex-smokers as a cost of any proposed antitobacco policy. This practice, which significantly limits regulatory capacity, is premised on the assumption that there is in fact a loss in SWB among ex-smokers. METHODS: We analyse the relationship between SWB and smoking status using a longitudinal internet survey of over 5000 Dutch adults across 5 years. We control for socioeconomic, demographic and health characteristics, and in a contribution to the literature, we additionally control for two potential confounding personality characteristics, habitual use of external substances and sensitivity to stress. In another contribution, we estimate panel fixed effects models that additionally control for unobservable time-invariant characteristics. RESULTS: We find strong suggestive evidence that ex-smokers do not suffer a net loss in SWB. We also find no evidence that the change in SWB of those who quit smoking under stricter tobacco control policies is different from those who quit under a more relaxed regulatory environment. Furthermore, our cross-sectional estimates suggest that the increase in SWB from quitting smoking is statistically significant and also of a meaningful magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, we find no empirical support for the proposition that ex-smokers suffer lower net SWB compared to when they were smoking. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: A debate is currently underway about the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) methods for evaluating antitobacco regulation. In particular, the US government requires a cost-benefit analysis for significant new regulations, which has led the FDA to consider potential lost subjective well-being (SWB) of ex-smokers as a cost of any proposed antitobacco policy. This practice, which significantly limits regulatory capacity, is premised on the assumption that there is in fact a loss in SWB among ex-smokers. METHODS: We analyse the relationship between SWB and smoking status using a longitudinal internet survey of over 5000 Dutch adults across 5 years. We control for socioeconomic, demographic and health characteristics, and in a contribution to the literature, we additionally control for two potential confounding personality characteristics, habitual use of external substances and sensitivity to stress. In another contribution, we estimate panel fixed effects models that additionally control for unobservable time-invariant characteristics. RESULTS: We find strong suggestive evidence that ex-smokers do not suffer a net loss in SWB. We also find no evidence that the change in SWB of those who quit smoking under stricter tobacco control policies is different from those who quit under a more relaxed regulatory environment. Furthermore, our cross-sectional estimates suggest that the increase in SWB from quitting smoking is statistically significant and also of a meaningful magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, we find no empirical support for the proposition that ex-smokers suffer lower net SWB compared to when they were smoking. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Laura Sapranaviciute-Zabazlajeva; Lolita Sileikiene; Dalia Luksiene; Abdonas Tamosiunas; Ricardas Radisauskas; Irena Milvidaite; Martin Bobak Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Xiangren Yi; Zongyu Liu; Wenzhen Qiao; Xiuye Xie; Nuo Yi; Xiaosheng Dong; Baozhen Wang Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Terry Frank Pechacek; Pratibha Nayak; Paul Slovic; Scott R Weaver; Jidong Huang; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Somtip Watanapongvanich; Mostafa Saidur Rahim Khan; Pongpat Putthinun; Shunsuke Ono; Yoshihiko Kadoya Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Julia Velten; Angela Bieda; Saskia Scholten; André Wannemüller; Jürgen Margraf Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sophie Turner; Charles Diako; Rozanne Kruger; Marie Wong; Warrick Wood; Kay Rutherfurd-Markwick; Ajmol Ali Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Mostafa Saidur Rahim Khan; Pongpat Putthinun; Somtip Watanapongvanich; Pattaphol Yuktadatta; Md Azad Uddin; Yoshihiko Kadoya Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390