Back

A decision aid for policymakers to estimate the impact of e-cigarette flavour restrictions on population smoking and e-cigarette use prevalence among youth versus smoking prevalence among adults

Gibson, M. J.; Munafo, M. R.; Attwood, A. S.; Dockrell, M. J.; Havill, M. A.; Khouja, J. N.

2022-11-14 health policy
10.1101/2022.11.14.22282288 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPolicy decisions should be evidence-based, but the magnitude of intended and unintended impacts cannot always be easily estimated from the available data. For example, banning flavours in electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to reduce appeal to non-smoking young people could have the intended impact by reducing youth vaping but could have negative consequences for adult smokers and vapers. MethodsWe developed a decision aid to help policymakers make informed decisions on the potential net impact of a ban on e-cigarette flavours. We estimated the number of non-smoking youth who would be deterred from ever vaping and subsequently ever smoking, and the number of smokers and ex-smokers who would be deterred from quitting or encouraged to relapse, to determine whether the benefits to youth outweigh the costs to existing smokers and vapers. This aid then outputs a report with the results graphically depicted to aid interpretability. ResultsWe demonstrated the value of this decision aid using data from various sources to estimate the impact of a flavour ban in three populations: the general UK population, low-socioeconomic position UK population, and the general US population. All three examples suggested a negative net population impact of a ban. These reports were then presented to the all-party parliamentary group for vaping. ConclusionsWe demonstrate how decision aids can be used to help policymakers arrive at evidence-based decisions efficiently and can be used to quickly obtain up-to-date estimates as new data becomes available.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.