ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2024
A Content Analysis of Nicotine Descriptors on the Front of Vape Packaging in the United Kingdom.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public health impact of disposable electronic cigarettes since 2021: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Tobacco and Related Products Regulations (TRPR) 2016 require consumers in the United Kingdom to be informed about the presence of nicotine in vaping products. However, there is misunderstanding among some young people and adults around the strength of products. We examined how nicotine content is displayed on the front of vape packaging in the United Kingdom. AIMS AND
methodsBetween August and December 2022, we systematically analyzed a representative, stratified selection of vapes and refill packs (n = 156) on the UK market to assess TRPR compliance. This paper presents an analysis of free-text responses collected to indicate the presence of nicotine information on the front-of-pack including metric, percentage, graphic, and text indicators. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics produced for the sample as a whole and for five product categories.
resultsMost packs (n = 126, 81%) displayed at least one front-of-pack nicotine descriptor, including the majority of disposables (n = 43, 90%), e-liquid (n = 42, 88%) and refill pods (n = 36, 100%). Many packs (n = 107, 69%) contained a nicotine-related metric (eg mg/ml), a quarter (n = 37, 24%) included a percentage indicator and most (n = 126, 81%) displayed at least one of these. Almost two-fifths (n = 57, 37%) mentioned nicotine beyond the warning. Less observed indicators included graphic and textual depictions of strength, dosage information, and an equivalent number of cigarettes.
conclusionsThe front of vape packaging communicates important product information to consumers. There is inconsistency in how nicotine content is currently displayed. Future research should examine how best to display nicotine content to promote consumer understanding and informed decision making. IMPLICATIONS: This pack analysis of a representative sample of UK vape packaging highlights the varied ways in which nicotine content and strength are currently communicated to consumers on the front of vape packaging. The inconsistent presentation of nicotine content on the front of packs may contribute to misperceptions around product strength. A consistent and easily understood way of communicating nicotine content on the front of vape packaging may help consumers make more informed choices about vape products.
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.