Abstract

Objective: To compare the quality and funding source of studies concluding a negative economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry to studies concluding no such negative impact.

Data sources: Researchers sought all studies produced before 31 August 2002. Articles published in scientific journals were located with Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents, PsychInfo, Econlit, and Healthstar. Unpublished studies were located from tobacco company websites and through internet searches.

Study selection: 97 studies that made statements about economic impact were included. 93% of the studies located met the selection criteria as determined by consensus between multiple reviewers.

Data extraction: Findings and characteristics of studies (apart from funding source) were classified independently by two researchers. A third assessor blind to both the objective of the present study and to funding source also classified each study.

Data synthesis: In studies concluding a negative impact, the odds of using a subjective outcome measure was 4.0 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 9.6; p = 0.007) and the odds of not being peer reviewed was 20 times (95% CI 2.6 to 166.7; p = 0.004) that of studies concluding no such negative impact. All of the studies concluding a negative impact were supported by the tobacco industry. 94% of the tobacco industry supported studies concluded a negative economic impact compared to none of the non-industry supported studies.

Conclusion: All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.