ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2016
Who thinks what about e-cigarette regulation? A content analysis of UK newspapers.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Pooled it
- The Effect of Conflicting Public Health Guidance on Smokers' and Vapers' E-cigarette Harm Perceptions.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Trial
- Article
- Newspaper framing of food and beverage corporations' sponsorship of sport: a content analysis.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Newspaper Coverage of Snus in an Emerging Norwegian Snus Market 2002-2011: A Content Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
- Evolution of media frames about e-cigarettes from 2004 to 2019: a content analysis of newspapers in China.Health education research · 2022Article
- Configuring the PrEP user: framing pre-exposure prophylaxis in UK newsprint 2012-2016.Culture, health & sexuality · 2021Article
- Evidence use in E-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research.BMC public health · 2021Article
- An Evaluation of the Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacy Staff and Pre-Registration Students of E-Cigarettes Use: A Systematic Review.Tobacco use insights · 2021Review
- E-Cigarettes: A Disruptive Technology? An Analysis of Health Actors' Positions on E-Cigarette Regulation in Scotland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.Public health nutrition · 2019Article
- E-cigarette use is associated with other tobacco use among US adolescents.International journal of public health · 2019Article
- The palatability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: A content analysis of newspaper coverage of the UK sugar debate.PloS one · 2018Article
- Who thinks what about e-cigarette regulation? A content analysis of UK newspapers.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo establish how frequently different types of stakeholders were cited in the UK media debate about e-cigarette regulation, their stances towards different forms of e-cigarette regulation, and what rationales they employed in justifying those stances.
methodsQuantitative and qualitative content analyses of 104 articles about e-cigarette regulation published in eight UK and three Scottish national newspapers between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014.
resultsReporting on e-cigarette regulation grew significantly (P < 0.001) throughout the sample period. Governments and regulatory bodies were the most frequently cited stakeholders and uniformly supported regulation, while other stakeholders did not always support regulation. Arguments for e-cigarette regulation greatly outnumbered arguments against regulation. Regulating purchasing age, restricting marketing and regulating e-cigarettes as medicine were broadly supported, while stakeholders disagreed about prohibiting e-cigarette use in enclosed public spaces. In rationalizing their stances, supporters of regulation cited child protection and concerns about the safety of e-cigarette products, while opponents highlighted the potential of e-cigarettes in tobacco cessation and questioned the evidence base associating e-cigarette use with health harms.
conclusionsIn the UK between 2013 and 2014, governments and tobacco control advocates frequently commented on e-cigarettes in UK-wide and Scottish national newspapers. Almost all commentators supported e-cigarette regulation, but there was disagreement about whether e-cigarette use should be allowed in enclosed public spaces. This appeared to be linked to whether commentators emphasized the harms of vapour and concerns about renormalizing smoking or emphasized the role of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.
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.