Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31694602›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2019

Potential for non-combustible nicotine products to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and synthesis of best available evidence.

Mark Lucherini, Sarah Hill, Katherine Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Selective Reduction of Socioeconomic Disparities in the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace: Effects of Cigarette and E-cigarette Flavor Restrictions.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Associations Between Nicotine Knowledge and Smoking Cessation Behaviors Among US Adults Who Smoke.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  10. Towards a Canadian evidence base to inform action to prevent and control vaping in Canada.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark LucheriniGlobal Health Policy Unit, School of Social & Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. m.lucherini@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1494-7740
Sarah HillGlobal Health Policy Unit, School of Social & Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Katherine SmithSchool of Social Work & Social Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Keele University · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Strathclyde · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21553Cancer Research UK C55561/A21553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile some experts have emphasised the potential for e-cigarettes to facilitate cessation among smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES), there is limited evidence of their likely equity impact. We assessed the potential for electronic cigarettes and other non-combustible nicotine-containing products (NCNPs) to reduce inequalities in smoking by systematically reviewing evidence on their use by SES in countries at stage IV of the cigarette epidemic.

methodsTen electronic databases were searched in February 2017 using terms relating to e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); and SES. We included studies published since 1980 that were available in English and examined product use by SES indicators such as income and education. Data synthesis was based on those studies judged to be of medium- to high-quality using guidelines adapted from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme.

resultsWe identified 54 studies describing NCNP use by SES across 12 countries, of which 27 were judged of sufficient quality to include in data synthesis. We found mixed patterns of e-cigarette current use by SES, with evidence of higher use among low-income adults but unclear or mixed findings by education and occupation. In contrast, smokeless tobacco current use was consistently higher among low SES adults. There was very limited evidence on the SES distribution of NRT in adults and of all NCNPs in young people.

conclusionsThe only NCNP for which there are clear patterns of use by SES is smokeless tobacco, where prevalence is higher among low SES groups. While this suggests a potentially positive impact on inequalities in smoking (if NCNP use displaces smoked tobacco use), this has not been seen in practice. These findings do not support the suggestion that e-cigarettes have the potential to reduce social inequalities in smoking, since i) current evidence does not show a clear trend of higher e-cigarette use in population groups with higher tobacco consumption, and ii) the experience of smokeless tobacco suggests that - even where NCNP use is higher among low SES groups - this does not necessarily replace smoked tobacco use in these groups.

Indexed as

Socioeconomic FactorsAdolescentAdultFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Status DisparitiesHumansIncomeMaleOccupationsPrevalenceSmokingSmoking CessationTobacco, SmokelessTobacco UseTobacco Use Cessation DevicesE-cigarettesInequalitiesNicotine replacement therapySmokeless tobacco

Identifiers

PMID31694602
PMCPMC6836524
OpenAlexW2986446887

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.