ArticleHealth economics2020
Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare.
Article in Health economics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restricting choice of e-cigarette flavor and device type increases choices to use combusted cigarettes among adults who dual use both products: Results from a within-subjects randomized trial.Addictive behaviors · 2026Trial
- E-CIGARETTE FLAVOR RESTRICTIONS' EFFECTS ON TOBACCO PRODUCT SALES.American journal of health economics · 2026Article
- Will tobacco price increases lead more people who smoke to vape? The results from a discrete choice experiment amongst U.S. adults.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The actual and anticipated effects of restrictions on flavoured electronic nicotine delivery systems: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2022Article
- The Economics of Tobacco Regulation: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of economic literature · 2022Article
- Who, me? Optimism bias about US teenagers' ability to quit vaping.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021Article
- Information and sin goods: Experimental evidence on cigarettes.Health economics · 2021Article
- Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior.Health economics · 2021Article
- News that Takes Your Breath Away: Risk Perceptions During an Outbreak of Vaping-related Lung Injuries.Journal of risk and uncertainty · 2020Article
- Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data.Journal of health economics · 2019Article
- To "vape" or smoke? Experimental evidence on adult smokers.Economic inquiry · 2019Article
- Should flavours be banned in cigarettes and e-cigarettes? Evidence on adult smokers and recent quitters from a discrete choice experiment.Tobacco control · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic cigarettes are a less harmful alternative to combustible cigarettes. We analyze data on e-cigarette choices in an online experimental market. Our data and mixed logit model capture two sources of consumer optimization errors: overestimates of the relative risks of e-cigarettes and present bias. Our novel data and policy analysis make three contributions. First, our predictions about e-cigarette use under counterfactual policy scenarios provide new information about current regulatory tradeoffs. Second, we provide empirical evidence about the role consumer optimization errors play in tobacco product choices. Third, we contribute to behavioral welfare analysis of policies that address individual optimization errors. Compared with standard cost-benefit analysis, our behavioral welfare economics analysis leads to much larger estimates of the costs of policies that discourage e-cigarette use or the benefits of policies that encourage e-cigarette use.
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.