Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38286590›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2025

Cross-sectional study of the associations between the implementation of the WHO FCTC tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship bans and current e-cigarette use among youth from countries with different income levels.

Tuija Ylitörmänen, Yelena Tarasenko, Heikki Hiilamo, Otto Ruokolainen, Pekka Puska, Hanna Ollila

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tuija YlitörmänenDepartment of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland tuija.ylitormanen@thl.fi.ORCID 0000-0001-6893-6014
Yelena TarasenkoJiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7062-6960
Heikki HiilamoDepartment of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Otto RuokolainenDepartment of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9601-7330
Pekka PuskaDepartment of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8916-1035
Hanna OllilaDepartment of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8814-1021
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIGeorgia Southern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) Article 13 requires countries to ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS), and bans are recommended to cover electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). We examined youth e-cigarette prevalence by TAPS regulations in countries with different income levels.

methodsWe analysed data on 165 299 respondents from 48 countries with 2016/2018 WHO FCTC implementation reports and 2016-2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey. We used multilevel logistic regressions to examine associations between TAPS regulations and current e-cigarette use, stratified by country income.

resultsAbout 1 in 10 respondents was currently using e-cigarettes. Respondents in countries with TAPS bans on the internet were less likely to use e-cigarettes (adjOR=0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.86) than youth in countries without such bans. In lower middle-income and low-income countries, bans on displaying tobacco products at the point of sale (adjOR=0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90), bans on product placement (adjOR=0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.69) and strength of additional TAPS measures were associated with lower prevalence of e-cigarette use among students. Being taught about the dangers of the use of tobacco in school was associated with lower odds of e-cigarette use. No differences in the use of e-cigarettes were observed by types of TAPS among respondents in high-income countries.

conclusionsStrengthening implementation of TAPS policies and assuring they cover new and emerging products, online channels and points of sales are essential, especially in lower income countries. Maintaining tobacco health education is also important to protect youth from e-cigarette use.

Indexed as

AdvertisingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansIncomeMalePrevalenceWorld Health OrganizationYoung AdultAdvertising and PromotionElectronic nicotine delivery devicesLow/Middle income countryPublic policySurveillance and monitoring

Identifiers

PMID38286590
PMCPMC12322421
OpenAlexW4391308937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.