Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27517716›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

To Regulate or Not to Regulate? Views on Electronic Cigarette Regulations and Beliefs about the Reasons for and against Regulation.

Ashley Sanders-Jackson, Andy S L Tan, Cabral A Bigman, Susan Mello, Jeff Niederdeppe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Perceptions of e-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products Among Never Users of Nicotine in the European Union.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Electronic cigarette survey characteristics.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2020
    Article
  7. An Examination of the Variation in Estimates of E-Cigarette Prevalence among U.S. Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Ashley Sanders-JacksonMichigan State University, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of Communication Arts and Science, 404 Wilson Road, Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Andy S L TanHarvard University, TH Chan School of Public Health, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Kresge Building, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Cabral A BigmanUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Department of Communication, 3001 Lincoln Hall, 702 S. Wright Street Urbana, Illinois, United States of America.
Susan MelloNortheastern University, Department of Communication Studies, College of Arts, Media and Design, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jeff NiederdeppeCornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication, 476 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicies designed to restrict marketing, access to, and public use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasingly under debate in various jurisdictions in the US. Little is known about public perceptions of these policies and factors that predict their support or opposition.

methodsUsing a sample of US adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk in May 2015, this paper identifies beliefs about the benefits and costs of regulating e-cigarettes and identifies which of these beliefs predict support for e-cigarette restricting policies.

resultsA higher proportion of respondents agreed with 8 different reasons to regulate e-cigarettes (48.5% to 83.3% agreement) versus 7 reasons not to regulate e-cigarettes (11.5% to 18.9%). The majority of participants agreed with 7 out of 8 reasons for regulation. When all reasons to regulate or not were included in a final multivariable model, beliefs about protecting people from secondhand vapor and protecting youth from trying e-cigarettes significantly predicted stronger support for e-cigarette restricting policies, whereas concern about government intrusion into individual choices was associated with reduced support. DISCUSSION: This research identifies key beliefs that may underlie public support or opposition to policies designed to regulate the marketing and use of e-cigarettes. Advocates on both sides of the issue may find this research valuable in developing strategic campaigns related to the issue. IMPLICATIONS: Specific beliefs of potential benefits and costs of e-cigarette regulation (protecting youth, preventing exposure to secondhand vapor, and government intrusion into individual choices) may be effectively deployed by policy makers or health advocates in communicating with the public.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansMaleMarketingMiddle AgedPerceptionSmokingSmoking PreventionSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27517716
PMCPMC4982617

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.