Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37555700›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2023

Perceptions of a prescription model for accessing nicotine vaping products: an examination of submissions made by self-reported e-cigarette users to an Australian consultation.

Michelle I Jongenelis, Abby Robinson, Anastasia Hughes, Simone Pettigrew

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "It's the Wild West Out There": A Qualitative Study of the Views and Preparedness of Health Professionals in Helping Young Adult E-cigarette Users to Quit.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle I JongenelisMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0717-1692
Abby RobinsonMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2723-0784
Anastasia HughesMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Simone PettigrewThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3921-1174
The University of Melbourne · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1194713
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to rapid and substantial increases in rates of e-cigarette use among young people, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) made changes to the regulations governing nicotine vaping products. As part of the regulatory change process, Australians were invited to comment on the proposed regulations, which featured the introduction of a prescription model for nicotine vaping products. To inform strategies to enhance compliance with the tightened regulations, this study examined submissions made by self-reported e-cigarette users to the TGA's public consultation (n = 1405). A content analysis was conducted to identify and quantify key arguments. Claims about possible negative consequences associated with the regulations (e.g. people will return to smoking, inconvenience) featured in most submissions (84%). Around half (55%) of submissions mentioned perceived benefits of e-cigarettes, including favourable health outcomes (e.g. improved breathing) and enhanced tobacco cessation. Around half (52%) featured concerns about inconsistency in treatment and the argument that e-cigarettes should not be restricted when more harmful tobacco products are readily available. Alternative approaches to a prescription model were offered in nearly one-third (31%) of submissions. One-quarter (26%) included text provided by an industry-led astroturfing campaign. The arguments made in the analysed submissions suggest a lack of appreciation of (i) the negative health outcomes associated with e-cigarette use and (ii) evidence linking these devices to smoking relapse. Results highlight the need for targeted health campaigns that address (i) gaps in consumers' knowledge and (ii) vaping-related misinformation being promulgated by the industry and its allies.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentAustraliaHealth PolicyHumansNicotineNicotineconsultatione-cigarettesnicotinepolicyTherapeutic Goods Administration

Identifiers

PMID37555700
PMCPMC10411036
OpenAlexW4385683842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.