Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27312824›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2017

Support for e-cigarette policies: a survey of smokers and ex-smokers in Great Britain.

Leonie S Brose, Timea R Partos, Sara C Hitchman, Ann McNeill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Awareness of and support for banning e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products among Mexicans who smoke.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Public Support for Electronic Cigarette Regulation in Hong Kong: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leonie S BroseDepartment of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), London, UK.
Timea R PartosDepartment of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), London, UK.
Sara C HitchmanDepartment of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), London, UK.
Ann McNeillDepartment of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), London, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionE-cigarette regulations are the topic of extensive debate. Approaches vary worldwide, and limited evidence is available on public support for specific policies or what influences support. The present study aimed to assess smokers' and ex-smokers' support for 3 e-cigarette policies: (1) equal or higher availability relative to cigarettes, (2) advertising, (3) use in smoke-free places, and to assess changes in support over time and associations with respondent characteristics.

methodsSmokers and ex-smokers (n=1848) provided 3279 observations over 2 waves (2013 and 2014) of a longitudinal web-based survey in Great Britain. Multivariable logistic regressions fitted using generalised estimating equations assessed change in policy support over time, and associations between support and demographics (age, gender and income), smoking and e-cigarette use status, nicotine knowledge and perceived relative harm.

resultsEqual or higher relative availability was supported by 79% in 2013 and 76% in 2014; advertising by 66% and 56%, respectively; neither change was significant in adjusted analyses. Support for use in smoke-free places decreased significantly from 55% to 45%. Compared with ex-smokers, smokers were more likely to support advertising and use in smoke-free places. Respondents using e-cigarettes, those who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes, and those with more accurate knowledge about nicotine were more likely to support all 3 policies.

conclusionsLess restrictive e-cigarette policies were more likely to be supported by e-cigarette users, and respondents who perceived e-cigarettes to be less harmful than cigarettes, or knew that nicotine was not a main cause of harm to health.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAdvertisingFemaleHealth PolicyHumansLogistic ModelsLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedSmoke-Free PolicySmokersSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvertising and PromotionElectronic nicotine delivery devicesPublic opinionPublic policy

Identifiers

PMID27312824
PMCPMC5739866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.