ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
E-Cigarettes: A Disruptive Technology? An Analysis of Health Actors' Positions on E-Cigarette Regulation in Scotland.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Indoor Pollution from Glo, Iqos, and Juul, Using Traditional Combustion Cigarettes as Benchmark: Evidence from the Randomized SUR-VAPES AIR Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Policy influences on adolescent risk perceptions of vaping.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2025Article
- E-cigarettes in Nigeria: A scoping review of evidence.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Tobacco Industry Engagement in the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee E-Cigarettes Inquiry.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Youth's engagement and perceptions of disposable e-cigarettes: a UK focus group study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- User-generated content and influencer marketing involving e-cigarettes on social media: a scoping review and content analysis of YouTube and Instagram.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Big tobacco's dirty tricks: Seven key tactics of the tobacco industry.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2023Article
- Evidence use in E-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Youth vaping and smoking and parental vaping: a panel survey.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Policy Debates Regarding Nicotine Vaping Products in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis of Submissions to a Government Inquiry from Health and Medical Organisations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concerns have been raised that the divisions emerging within public health in response to electronic cigarettes are weakening tobacco control. This paper employed thematic and network analysis to assess 90 policy consultation submissions and 18 interviews with political actors to examine the extent of, and basis for, divisions between health-focused actors with regard to the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and appropriate approaches to regulation in Scotland. The results demonstrated considerable engagement in e-cigarette policy development by health-focused actors and a widely held perception of strong disagreement. They show that actors agreed on substantive policy issues, such as age-of-sale restrictions and, in part, the regulation of advertising. Points of contestation were related to the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and the regulation of vaping in public places. The topicality, limitations of the evidence base and underlying values may help explain the heightened sense of division. While suggesting that some opportunities for joint advocacy might have been missed, this analysis shows that debates on e-cigarette regulation cast a light upon differences in thinking about appropriate approaches to health policy development within the public health community. Constructive debates on these divisive issues among health-focused actors will be a crucial step toward advancing public health.
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.