ArticleThorax2023
Nationwide indoor smoking ban and impact on smoking behaviour and lung function: a two-population natural experiment.
Article in Thorax, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tobacco and asthma: presenting the world health organization (WHO) tobacco knowledge summary.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Review
- Lung Cancer incidence in both sexes across global areas: data from 1978 to 2017 and predictions up to 2035.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Examining Vaping Policies in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities.Tobacco use insights · 2025Article
- Approaches to Reach Trustworthy Patient Education: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Indoor air pollution and airway health.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Review
- Prevalence of hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism in liver transplant recipients and associated risk factors.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Mesenchymal Stem Extracellular Vesicles in Various Respiratory Diseases: A New Opportunity.Journal of inflammation research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany countries have implemented indoor smoking bans over the past two decades. Although smoking bans have been shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes, little is known about their impact on respiratory health. This study investigated the impact of a nationwide indoor smoking ban on smoking behaviour and lung function.
methodsWe used repeated cross-sectional data from two large cohorts of the general population comprising 31 807 Swiss and 62 093 Danish adults. We compared associations between smoking ban and smoking prevalence and prebronchodilator lung function trends in Denmark (indoor smoking ban introduced in 2007) and Switzerland (indoor smoking ban introduced in 2010) from 2005 to 2010 using a quasi-experimental study design. We performed difference-in-difference analyses with linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, weight and height.
resultsDenmark had a stronger decrease in active smokers compared with Switzerland. Also, forced expiratory volume in the first second was higher in Danish adults than in Swiss adults: 26 mL (95% CI 2.4 to 49) 1 year, 88 mL (65 to 112) 2 years, and 74 mL (51 to 98) 3 years after smoking ban implementation. Correspondingly, forced vital capacity was higher in Danish adults compared with Swiss adults (80 mL (50 to 109) after 1 year and 126 mL (97 to 155) after two and 3 years). Improvements were observed in both never-smokers and ever-smokers, most pronounced in ever-smokers.
conclusionsNationwide indoor smoking ban is associated with less smoking and improved lung function in the general population. Implementing an indoor smoking ban can improve lung function by influencing smoking behaviour and reducing secondhand smoke.
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.