Critical Analysis: Tobacco Usage Reduction in US Workplaces Case Study

This case study critically analyzes Adams' (2020) business case study, which focuses on reducing tobacco usage among workers in the USA. The analysis evaluates the relevancy, factual evidence, purpose, scope, and logicality of the article, examining themes such as the prevalence of tobacco consumption, its impact on productivity and the economy, health-related effects, and the importance of smoking cessation programs. The case study highlights the author's arguments, supports them with relevant research and government reports, and discusses the limitations of the study, particularly concerning the use of older data and the lack of consideration for socio-economic factors and other health-related issues. It also offers strategies for businesses to encourage employees to reduce tobacco consumption and create smoke-free workplaces, emphasizing the need for updated data and a comprehensive approach to address the multifaceted nature of health and productivity in the modern workplace. The analysis also considers the limitations of the research, the need for more recent studies, and the importance of considering socioeconomic factors and alternative health-related issues.

CRITICAL THINKING
SKILLS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CASE STUDY 2: CRITICAL ANALYSIS....................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

CASE STUDY 2: CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The idea and opinions that are presented by the author Adams, (2020) in the business
case study are aimed at reduction of tobacco usage among the workers in the USA. In this essay,
the case study will be critically evaluated for the purpose of deeper understanding of relevancy,
factual evidences, purpose, scope and logicality of the entire article. The purpose of applying
critical thinking is to evaluate the work of the author for increasing the understanding of the
article and the extent to which the author has remained objective in his work. The analysis will
evaluate the themes illustrated by the author to gain insights into the interaction of specific
elements contributing to the effectiveness and power of the article (Cottrell, 2017). Critical
thinking and analysis are the central component of the academic interpretation and involves
breaking down of the statement and ideas, its primary purpose, its limitations, and discussing it
from an open-minded perspective. However, the critique will not merely judge the flaws in the
article or engage in objectionably arguing by certain standards. It will point towards closer
reading of the entire work to gather meanings by evaluation of its merits. An attitude of
scepticism and reasoned doubts will be adopted along with habitual questioning the quality of the
claims of knowledge regarding the field of work, that are business, human resources, smoking
and health ang generation of these claims (Chatfield, T., 2017). All the sources of research and
information will be assessed in context of validity, authenticity and relevancy. At all times the
analysis will be respectful, challenging and constructive.
Adams, (2020) states in the introductory paragraph regarding the evident reduction in the
number of cigarette smoking that takes place in USA. The author has further added that 34
million US who are engaged in smoking tend to have devastating outcomes in context to health
and this may result in high morbidity due to associated diseases with smoking. Analysing this
statement, it can be seen that the author has not mentioned any significant evidence in support to
the actual decrease in the smoking rates in the USA and that it can be interpreted as a mere
assumption. Although evidences regarding this argument exist as according to Jamal and et.al.,
(2018), the overall cigarette smoking in the US adults who are less than 18 years of age has
declined from around 21 % in the year 2005 to below 16% by 2016. As per the source, the
number of people who still smoke has reached nearly 38 million (Jamal and et.al., 2016). The
author has correctly used the latest facts regarding the effects of smoking on the economy that is
3

around $300 billion every year that included costs for medical care and the amount lost due to
reduces productivity of US workers. The author has based the idea of the article on his personal
belief that health goal of reduction in tobacco usage both active and passive smoking is the
greatest action that could be taken by the organisations that could be pursued with employees
which would yield the biggest impact on health and business (US Department of Health and
Human Services, 2014). Contradicting this point, there are many aspects that improve economic
contribution and health which cold be pursued by businesses like alcohol consumption,
maintaining unhealthy lifestyles, work-life balance, training and development skills of
employees and many others apart from the issue of smoking (Fisher, 2011).
Adams, (2020) has reviewed in the first theme regarding the popularity of consumption
of tobacco and smoking in the workforce across the USA. The author has explicitly stated about
the composition of workers who have the highest level of consumption of tobacco and the total
of 22 % adult workers as reported in the year 2014 (Dai and Hao, 2017). The variation in the rate
of smoking in terms of occupation as illustrated by the author results in higher rate in blue collar
occupations such as transportation and construction relative to white collar jobs like sales and
management. The author has focussed the perspective on who is consuming more rather than the
reasons for the variation in consumption (Martinez and et.al., 2018). The inclusion of socio-
economic factors and their effect upon health is an important foundation for these outcomes. As
per the studies the cultural and social impact which is directly related to education, occupation
and income is a major determinant of higher prevalence of smoking in the blue collared workers
(Najder, 2018). It also leads to the potential argument of aggressive promotion of tobacco
cessation programs that businesses have to undertake. It was also stated by the author regarding
high consumption of tobacco in military veterans but as per studies of Odani and et.al., (2018),
the consumption in the military veterans has decreased substantially. However, the major reason
for the prevalence is the norm that smoking is a means for building camaraderie with fellow
cadets and a method to mitigate stress.
It was stated in the second theme of the article that the usage of tobacco has been a major
reason for reduction in the productivity of the workers and been a contributor to negative impact
upon the economy of US (Adams, 2020). This was evidently supported by the author through the
use of relevant government and health reports and meta analyses, and resulted in the increased
absenteeism, numerous unsanctioned breaks, risks of injury, fire, vehicular collisions, explosion
4

and property damage. The missed perspective in saving economic costs was a reduced number of
smokers would increase the economic savings and lead to improved productivity of these
workers. The perspective and accountability of the federal government in terms of reducing this
economic impact was also not illustrated by the author. This is in spite the fact that all healthcare
related expenditure and healthcare infrastructure in borne by the government, and effective steps
could substantially reduce the tobacco consumption’s impact on the US economy. As per Babb,
(2017) increasing the prices of products associated with tobacco is the only effective method for
reducing the consumption. A 10% rise in the costs of cigarette has been estimated to reduces the
consumption by almost 5%. The research also indicates that the age group of young adults are
highly likely to respond to the prices that the elder and adult age group. Apart from this the costs
associated with smoking results in direct medical care expenditure and productivity because of
premature death. The offsetting of these costs led state governments increase their revenue from
taxes and legal settlements (Hall and Doran, 2016).
The third theme of the article was based on the health-related impact of smoking on the
employees. The Adams, (2020) stated that the cigarette smoking resulted in diseases like
cardiovascular diseases, cancer, peripheral vascular disease, lung infections, and premature death
in workers who consumed tobacco. The author also stated the detrimental effects of second -
hand or passive smoking in the family members of the smoker. It was evidently stated by the
researcher that heart diseases such as stroke and lung cancer were the major outcomes of passive
smoking among people. The author concludes this theme by saying that smoking outcome in
detrimental effects on the functioning of the workers and their health conditions because of
reduced efficiency, decreased attentiveness and observation, irritations and infections, errors in
the workplace, unusual coughing etc. The effects were disruptive for the performance of
employees in the workplace by reducing their overall efficiency and productivity (Huang and
et.al., 2016). The author could have further elaborated the differences in terms of other factors
apart from smoking such as training problems, motivational level, other illnesses, compensation
queries, workplace culture as it is not necessary that smoking is the sole reason for lower
productivity and is often accompanied with one or more of these factors. A proper comparison
between the productivity of non-smokers and smokers could have been elaborated along with
effect of the cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases on the daily work undertaken by the
employees. Apart from that, the research by the author states only the rapid reduction in
5

cardiovascular diseases and associated respiratory diseases after quitting tobacco and smoking
but does not take in to account the prevalence of diseases like lung cancers and bronchitis (Song
and Baicker, 2019).
The fourth theme described by the author summarises the importance of smoking
cessation programs that businesses could initiate and significance of the associated benefits in
the workplace, productivity and employee health. Adams, (2020) has emphasised the idea of
payoff businesses which provided rewards to employees such as financial incentives, health
insurance coverage, cessation treatment at workplace, other incentives for quitting smoking. The
author explained how these led to reduced smoking in employees, economic savings, improved
health condition of the workers, reduction in costs and enhanced productivity (Levy and et.al.,
2017). The author could have further substantiated the benefits of smoking cessation programs
on the long-term benefits and how intervention costs are much lower than that of other diseases
like hypertension and high cholesterol. All the tobacco related healthcare costs get reduced and
premature morbidity rate declines. However, the major limitations of this research include use of
US estimates and data for particular healthcare costs and the benefits that only apply to the
technologically advanced and wealthy society (Gaskill and et.al., 2017). It cannot be assumed
that smoking cessation is directly linked to economic savings in long term when it comes to
people with low socio-economic status as the studies regarding this topic have been limited.
Also, the data merely shows the prevalence of healthcare costs and smoking and the information
cannot be used for concluding that it results in savings in treatments for workers who quit
smoking.
In this final theme of the article, Adams, (2020) has described and devised strategies that
could be adopted by the businesses for encouraging employees to reduce tobacco consumption,
quit smoking and develop a smoke free workplace. The author has argued that the review of all
health insurance coverage related policies and packages is necessary for reducing the hindrances
in achievement of full benefits. All the polices have to be at the same time, consistent with
various US departments and intuitions pertaining to labour, treasury, health and human services
(Smith and et.al., 2020). This is in fact a quite successful strategy stated by the author as
presently the benefits provided by the government in terms of health-related coverage have
multiple barriers, limitations and complexities which reduce the willingness to undergo any
major change, especially by the people of lower socio-economic status. Other strategies stated by
6

the author includes implementation of a policy for tobacco free worksite, convenient and free
access to medications and counselling for workers who abstain from consuming tobacco for a
minimum period of 6 months. Another effective strategy that author stated was partnerships with
public health stakeholders to implement strategies for reduction of smoking in the local
community, as it might extend the reach of the policies (Leal and et.al., 2020). The author
adopted an incentive-based approach, butt could have substantiated it further through a complete
ban of smoking on the official premises, getting employees to undertake health risk appraisals,
educating employees through workshops on medical and healthcare subject areas, making
support systems in the company available during withdrawal periods etc.
After an overall assessment, it could be observed that the author has used all relevant
sources for collection of information and the reliability is also high (Mohajan, 2017). Although
when it comes to the validity of multiple primary and secondary sources of information, the
sources seem to be concerned with older studies of tobacco consumption and its effects. The
changing dynamics of the present-day workplaces needs to be substantiated with more recent
studies in terms of employee productivity and absenteeism (Nunn, Brandt and Deveci, 2018).
The opinions expressed seemed to be more subjective as downfall in smoking was observed in
military veterans and no study showed a direct link between decreased productivity of military
veterans due to smoking. However, apart from this fact, all other arguments were based on facts
and seemed quite objective. The overall article proved to be quite informational with successful
strategies devised to convey the purpose of the research.
7

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Adams, J.M., 2020. Good for Health, Good for Business: The Business Case for Reducing
Tobacco Use. Public Health Reports, 135(1), pp.3-5.
Babb, S., 2017. Quitting smoking among adults—United States, 2000–2015. MMWR. Morbidity
and mortality weekly report, 65.
Chatfield, T., 2017. Critical thinking: Your guide to effective argument, successful analysis and
independent study. Sage.
Cottrell, S., 2017. Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Macmillan
International Higher Education.
Dai, H. and Hao, J., 2017. The prevalence of exposure to workplace secondhand smoke in the
United States: 2010 to 2015. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19(11), pp.1300-1307.
Fisher, A., 2011. Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Gaskill, C.E., and et.al., 2017. Financial benefit of a smoking cessation program prior to elective
colorectal surgery. Journal of Surgical Research, 215, pp.183-189.
Hall, W. and Doran, C., 2016. How much can the USA reduce health care costs by reducing
smoking?. PLoS Medicine, 13(5), p.e1002021.
Huang, B., and et.al., 2016. Effects of cigarette smoking on cardiovascular-related protein
profiles in two community-based cohort studies. Atherosclerosis, 254, pp.52-58.
Jamal, A., and et.al., 2016. Current cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2005–
2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(44), pp.1205-1211.
Jamal, A., and et.al., 2018. Current cigarette smoking among adults—United States,
2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(2), p.53.
Leal, I.M., and et.al., 2020. Adapting and Evaluating Implementation of a Tobacco-Free
Workplace Program in Behavioral Health Centers. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 44(6), pp.820-839.
Levy, D.E., and et.al., 2017. Cost-effectiveness of a health system-based smoking cessation
program. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19(12), pp.1508-1515.
Martinez, S.A., and et.al., 2018. A structural equation modeling approach to understanding
pathways that connect socioeconomic status and smoking. PLoS One, 13(2), p.e0192451.
Mohajan, H.K., 2017. Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and
reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), pp.59-82.
Najder, A., 2018. Sense of Coherence, Smoking Status, Biochemical Cardiovascular Risk
Factors and Body Mass in Blue Collar Workers. American journal of men's health, 12(4),
pp.894-899.
Nunn, R., Brandt, C. and Deveci, T., 2018. Transparency, subjectivity and objectivity in
academic texts. ESBB English Scholarship Beyond Borders, 4(1), pp.71-102.
Odani, S., and et.al., 2018. Tobacco product use among military veterans—United States, 2010–
2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(1), p.7.
Smith, F.K., and et.al., 2020. Barriers to Care Affecting Presentation to Urogynecologists in a
Community Setting. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.
Song, Z. and Baicker, K., 2019. Effect of a workplace wellness program on employee health and
economic outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. Jama, 321(15), pp.1491-1501.
US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014. The health consequences of smoking—50
years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General.
8