Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey

Open access
Fong, Geoffrey, Hammond, David, Laux, Fritz, Zanna, Mark, Cummings, K. Michael, Borland, Ron, Ross, Hana·2004·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

Regret may be a key variable in understanding the experience of smokers, the vast majority of whom continue to smoke while desiring to quit. We present data from the baseline wave (October-December 2002) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey, a random-digit-dialed telephone survey of a cohort of over 8,000 adult smokers across four countries--Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia--to estimate the prevalence of regret and to identify its predictors. The proportion of smokers who agreed or agreed strongly with the statement "If you had to do it over again, you would not have started smoking" was extremely high--about 90%--and nearly identical across the four countries. Regret was more likely to be experienced by older smokers, women, those who had tried to quit more often, those who perceived quitting as conferring benefits, those with higher levels of perceived addiction, those who worried about future damage to health, those who perceived smoking as lowering their quality of life, those who perceived higher monetary costs of smoking, and those who believed that smoking is not socially acceptable. This predictive model was the same in all four countries. Regret is thus a near-universal experience among smokers in all four countries, and the factors that predict regret are universal across these four countries. Among other implications for cessation treatment and smoking prevention, this near universality of regret casts doubt on the view of some policy analysts and economists that the decisions to take up and continue smoking are welfare-maximizing for the consumer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622200412331320743

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Fong, G., Hammond, D., Laux, F., Zanna, M., Cummings, K. M., Borland, R., & Ross, H.
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2004-12
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
341-351
ISSN
1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126221177
Cited by
231
References
4
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14622200412331320743
The paper
Fong, G., Hammond, D., Laux, F., Zanna, M., Cummings, K. M., Borland, R., & Ross, H. (2004). The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200412331320743

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.