Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31243033›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Views of prison staff in Scotland on the potential benefits and risks of e-cigarettes in smoke-free prisons: a qualitative focus group study.

Ashley Brown, Helen Sweeting, Sean Semple, Linda Bauld, Evangelia Demou, Greig Logan, Kate Hunt

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley BrownInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling Institute for Social Marketing, Stirling, UK.
Helen SweetingMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3321-5732
Sean SempleInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling Institute for Social Marketing, Stirling, UK.
Linda BauldUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Evangelia DemouMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8616-525X
Greig LoganInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kate HuntInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling Institute for Social Marketing, Stirling, UK.
University of Stirling · GBMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU-12Chief Scientist Office SPHSU12Department of Health PHR/15/55/44Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were introduced into all Scottish prisons in February 2018, some months after prisons began preparing in 2017 for a smoking ban implemented in November 2018. In 2016/2017, prison staff views on the potential benefits and risks of e-cigarettes were explored in advance of the introduction of: (1) a smoking ban and (2) e-cigarettes.

settingFourteen prisons in Scotland.

participantsSeventeen focus groups and two paired interviews were conducted with 132 staff in 14 Scottish prisons 4-9 months before plans for a smoking ban were announced in July 2017. Both smoking and non-smoking staff were invited to participate.

resultsPrison staff highlighted three potential risks of e-cigarettes in smoke-free prisons: staff health risks from e-cigarette vapour; prisoner health risks from vaping; and risks to both groups from e-cigarette misuse, defects or accidents. Conversely, potential benefits of e-cigarettes in smoke-free prisons centred on: reducing smoking-related health harms to staff and prisoners; helping prisoners to manage without tobacco; and supporting staff to maintain safety and discipline in prison. Staff who participated in focus groups had limited experience of vaping and expressed some uncertainty and misunderstandings about e-cigarettes.

conclusionOur findings highlight that scientific uncertainty, misunderstanding about vaping, the complexity of prisons as workplaces and prison tobacco control policy all have implications for staff perceptions of the potential place of e-cigarettes in smoke-free prisons. To alleviate staff concerns, there is a need for reliable information on e-cigarettes. Staff may also require reassurances on whether products are 'tamper proof', and rules about vaping indoors.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsSmoke-Free PolicyFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPerceptionPrisonsRisk AssessmentScotlandSmoking PreventionTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco Smoke Pollutionhealth policypublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31243033
PMCPMC6597633
OpenAlexW2954444821

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.