ReviewBMC public health2020
Inequalities, harm reduction and non-combustible nicotine products: a meta-ethnography of qualitative evidence.
Review in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contextual factors in systematic reviews: understanding public health interventions in low socioeconomic status and disadvantaged populations.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Perceptions and Behavioral Context of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Nicotine pouch pharmacokinetics compared to smoked tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Review
- Reducing lifestyle risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups in high-income countries: A scoping review of systematic reviews.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- A scoping review on disparities in exposure to advertising for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products and implications for advancing a health equity research agenda.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- Socio-economic distribution of e-cigarette use among recent former regular smokers and current smokers at ages 25-26 in England.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to review qualitative evidence on how smokers in different socioeconomic groups engage with non-combustible nicotine products (NCNP), including electronic cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies, in order to provide insight into how these products might impact on smoking inequalities.
methodsWe searched ten electronic databases in February 2017 using terms relating to NCNP and socioeconomic status. We included qualitative studies that were published since 1980 and were available in English. We used guidelines adapted from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for appraising qualitative research.
resultsThe review only identified studies exploring the attitudes of socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers towards NCNP for harm reduction or cessation purposes (i.e. we did not identify any relevant studies of more advantaged socioeconomic groups). Using a lines-of-argument meta-ethnographic approach, we identified a predominantly pessimistic attitude to NCNP for harm reduction or cessation of smoking due to: wider circumstances of socioeconomic disadvantage; lack of a perceived advantage of alternative products over smoking; and a perceived lack of information about relative harms of NCNP compared to smoking. Optimistic findings, although fewer, suggested the potential of NCNP being taken up among smokers experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage.
conclusionsOverall, our review highlights the importance of considering the social, cultural and economic circumstances that influence experiences of smoking and of alternative product use.
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.