ArticlePreventing chronic disease2012
Economic effect of smoke-free ordinances on 11 Missouri cities.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How much progress has been made toward a smoke-free environment in the restaurants and bars of Japan? Limitations of partial bans and their enforcement.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Impact of US smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars by employer size: a panel study.BMJ open · 2017Observational
- Changes in Georgia restaurant and bar smoking policies from 2006 to 2012.Preventing chronic disease · 2015Article
- The effect of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act on food services and drinking places sales and numbers, 1998-2011.Preventing chronic disease · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe harmful effects of secondhand smoke are convincing more and more communities across the United States and the world to prohibit smoking in public places, especially in eating and drinking establishments. A 1993 Missouri state law allows smoking in designated areas in indoor public places such as restaurants and bars. Consequently, some Missouri communities have adopted local ordinances that prohibit smoking in all indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars. We used an objective measure of economic activity, the taxable sales revenues of eating and drinking establishments, to empirically examine the economic effect of smoke-free ordinances.
methodsWe studied the economic effect of smoke-free ordinances in 11 Missouri cities using multivariate log-linear regression models with log-transformed taxable sales revenues of eating and drinking establishments as the dependent variable and the smoke-free ordinance as the independent variable, while controlling for seasonality, economic condition and unemployment. We used data from 20 quarters before the smoke-free ordinances and at least 10 quarters after the smoke-free ordinances for all cities. The null hypothesis of no effect of smoke-free ordinance on taxable sales of the eating and drinking establishments was tested.
resultsEight of the 11 cities had increased taxable sales for eating and drinking establishments postordinance. The remaining 3 experienced no change.
conclusionThe findings of our study are consistent with findings from most published economic studies that a smoke-free ordinance does not harm a local economy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.