ArticlePerspectives in public health2025
An analysis of e-cigarette policy action, inaction and industry influence: implications for youth uptake in New Zealand.
Article in Perspectives in public health, 2025. 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.
- Perspectives of Turkish family physicians in Istanbul about e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids: a cross-sectional survey study.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Exploring youth vaping in New Zealand intermediate and high schools: a mixed-methods study protocol.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Trends in smoking prevalence before and after the emergence of vaping in Aotearoa/New Zealand among 14-15-year-olds identifying as Māori, Pacific, European, or Asian: an interrupted time series analysis of repeated cross-sectional data, 2003-2024.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- The Hidden Dangers of Vaping and the Need for Community Action: An Indian Perspective.International journal of preventive medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIn 2024, New Zealand had one of the highest rates of e-cigarette use among youth globally. In this article, we aim to examine key developments in e-cigarette policy that may have contributed to high uptake among young people in New Zealand between 2015 and 2024. By identifying key policy-relevant documents by government agencies and interactions with the industry, we aim to offer insights for jurisdictions looking to implement or strengthen e-cigarette policies.
methodsWe searched publicly available New Zealand government websites to identify documents related to e-cigarette policy between 2015 and 2024 (Ministry of Health, New Zealand Parliament, Beehive, Courts of New Zealand and New Zealand Customs). We included key policy-related documents for analysis. Documents were organised and summarised sequentially into a timeline graphic and chronological narrative results.
resultsNew Zealand introduced policies aimed at reducing youth e-cigarette uptake slowly compared to other high-income countries such as the UK and Australia. When policies were introduced, they lacked strength, which enabled the e-cigarette and tobacco industry to oppose, bypass and, ultimately, weaken the impact of such policies. The e-cigarette industry had multiple interactions with public health actors that may have positioned the industry as a legitimate partner in tobacco harm reduction.
conclusionThis study highlights that jurisdictions must move quickly to introduce effective measures on e-cigarettes to protect health. Policies must be sufficiently comprehensive to prevent the industry from opposing and bypassing laws. Governments must protect policy processes from companies that profit from nicotine addiction in line with the WHO Framework on Tobacco Control.
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.