SynthesisBMC primary care2026
How primary care addresses vaping in the youth: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaping among youth has emerged as a significant public health concern. Primary care professionals are uniquely positioned to address this issue, but their practices, perceptions, and preparedness remain poorly understood.
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to explore how primary care professionals manage e-cigarette use among youth, focusing on three key areas: perceptions, screening practices, and counselling strategies.
designThis review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure rigour and transparency. DATA SOURCES: For studies published from January 2000 to December 2024, a comprehensive search was conducted across Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, and Scopus. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies focusing on youth (aged 15-24), addressing e-cigarette use within primary care settings, and published in English were included. Exclusion criteria encompassed non-human studies, dual users, and articles without full text. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: From an initial pool of 896 publications, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. Data extraction followed a structured process, identifying themes related to perceptions, knowledge, screening, and counselling.
resultsClinicians' perceptions of e-cigarettes seem to affect their likelihood of discussing usage with patients, while gaps in knowledge and inconsistent screening practices remain common obstacles. Screening rates for e-cigarettes were remarkably lower than those for traditional cigarette products. Counselling practices varied considerably, while strategies such as motivational interviewing and personalised counselling were described, overall practice remained inconsistent. Thus, highlighting missed opportunities for early intervention and the need for more structured and standardised clinical approaches.
conclusionPrimary care professionals play a crucial role in addressing vaping among youth, but gaps in knowledge, inconsistent practices, and a lack of standardised guidelines limit their effectiveness. Targeted education, clear guidelines, and further research are essential to strengthen primary care interventions in this area.
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.