ArticleBMJ open2024
Perceptions of Australia's e-cigarette regulations and recommendations for future reforms: a qualitative study of adolescents and adults.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the potential consequences of the disposable vape ban in the UK: A qualitative study with young adults who use disposable vapes.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Access to E-Cigarettes Is Easy in a Regional Area in Australia: A Qualitative Study to Explore Young People's Views on Vaping.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Exploring Perceptions of Anti-vaping Message Themes: A Qualitative Study of Australian Adolescents and Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- The school community's role in addressing vaping: Findings from qualitative research to inform pedagogy, practice and policy.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess public perceptions of the effectiveness of e-cigarette regulations in minimising use among adolescents and those who have never smoked. Specifically, we explored (1) perceived effectiveness of current regulations relating to e-cigarettes and (2) ideas for further regulations that could reduce use. DESIGN AND
participantsFocus groups (n=16) were conducted with Australian adolescents (14-17 years), young adults (18-24 years) and adults (25-39 years). Groups were stratified by age, gender and e-cigarette use status. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
settingFocus groups were conducted in-person in two major Australian cities.
resultsGroups lacked a comprehensive understanding of e-cigarette regulations in Australia. When informed of these regulations, half of the groups considered the prescription model for nicotine e-cigarette products to be effective when enforced appropriately. Almost all groups considered access to non-nicotine products problematic. All groups suggested a range of demand reduction regulations, including plain packaging, health warnings, flavour restrictions and increased vape-free areas. Most groups (predominantly those who had never vaped) also recommended supply reduction regulations such as banning all e-cigarettes. The need for supply reduction measures to include addiction and mental health supports was discussed.
conclusionsThe regulations recommended by participants largely align with those that are to be introduced in Australia, indicating that these reforms are likely to be accepted by the public. Ensuring these reforms are complemented by formal supports for young people experiencing nicotine dependence and related mental health concerns is critical.
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.