| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Studies, Surveys, Papers, and Case Studies''' | '''Studies, Surveys, Papers, and Case Studies''' | ||
*Sometimes it's necessary to view the PDF version to access the full study. | *Sometimes it's necessary to view the PDF version to access the full study. | ||
*This page is for referencing the possible benefits of [[Abbreviations|'''ENDS''']] products vs. smoking cigarettes from a Public Health standpoint. (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems are also known as vapor technology, | *This page is for referencing the possible benefits of [[Abbreviations|'''ENDS''']] products vs. smoking cigarettes from a Public Health standpoint. (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems are also known as vapor technology, e-cigarettes, ecigs, EVP, etc.) | ||
*If you'd prefer someone else to add a study to a topic, there is a subject section called "Suggested studies to add to this page". You may put the link in that section for one of the regular page editors to address. | *If you'd prefer someone else to add a study to a topic, there is a subject section called "Suggested studies to add to this page". You may put the link in that section for one of the regular page editors to address. | ||
*If you'd like to help add content to this page, please see the directions at the bottom of the page. | *If you'd like to help add content to this page, please see the directions at the bottom of the page. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37061812/ Nicotine - friend or foe? The complex interplay between its role in dependence, harm reduction and risk communication.] === | === 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37061812/ Nicotine - friend or foe? The complex interplay between its role in dependence, harm reduction and risk communication.] === | ||
* So, how should we communicate the risks of nicotine? The quixotic attitude towards nicotine in our field has unintended consequences elsewhere. O’Brien et al.’s study of adolescents in the PATH study confirms findings in adults, including medical professionals, that nicotine is believed to cause smoking-related harms beyond addiction, such as cancer. Encouragingly, those having higher risk perceptions were less likely to start using nicotine-containing products a year later. Concerningly, even among adolescent smokers nearly half believed that nicotine in NRT was harmful, which may reduce the use of effective medication to help them stop smoking. | * So, how should we communicate the risks of nicotine? The quixotic attitude towards nicotine in our field has unintended consequences elsewhere. O’Brien et al.’s study of adolescents in the PATH study confirms findings in adults, including medical professionals, that nicotine is believed to cause smoking-related harms beyond addiction, such as cancer. Encouragingly, those having higher risk perceptions were less likely to start using nicotine-containing products a year later. Concerningly, even among adolescent smokers nearly half believed that nicotine in NRT was harmful, which may reduce the use of effective medication to help them stop smoking. | ||
* Clearly, no one wants to see a generation of nicotine-dependent youth, and more effective measures to limit access to nicotine, especially combustible nicotine, are needed. But when it comes to communicating research to the wider public, we must avoid conflating the relatively limited harm of nicotine dependence with its effects on maintaining tobacco addiction, and therefore well-established tobacco-related harm, not least because of the impact this has on risk perceptions of those most in need of nicotine-based treatment: Tobacco users. | * Clearly, no one wants to see a generation of nicotine-dependent youth, and more effective measures to limit access to nicotine, especially combustible nicotine, are needed. But when it comes to communicating research to the wider public, we must avoid conflating the relatively limited harm of nicotine dependence with its effects on maintaining tobacco addiction, and therefore well-established tobacco-related harm, not least because of the impact this has on risk perceptions of those most in need of nicotine-based treatment: Tobacco users. | ||
| Line 174: | Line 173: | ||
= Ethics = | |||
=== 2021: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/issue/23/1 Ethics and Harm Reduction Approaches in Tobacco Control] (Special journal edition) === | |||
* This special issue of ''Nicotine and Tobacco Research'' focuses on the ethical aspects of tobacco harm reduction as a strategy in tobacco control. Several of the papers arise from presentations given in May 2018 at a Summer Academy on population-level bioethics hosted by the Brocher Foundation, organized by Samia Hurst, Dan Wikler, Nir Eyal, and Monica Magalhaes, specifically focusing on tobacco control. This event led to a call for papers for this journal. | |||
* The polarization of this debate and the impact this has on trainees and early career researchers and professionals in the field of nicotine and tobacco is discussed in the commentary by Carroll and colleagues. | |||
* This further motivates the search for ethical principles, which can explain why participants in these debates take the positions they do, and assist us to find an ethical position that can clarify and guide policy choice. | |||
* Thomas and colleagues consider the debate from the point of view of three major analytical approaches in bioethics—utilitarianism, (individual oriented) bioethics, and public health ethics—arguing that the first is not adequate to tackle the problems, but that the latter approaches are in fact complementary and draw to similar conclusions. | |||
* The papers in this issue consider what may be familiar problems to most readers of this journal, but in possibly unfamiliar ways drawing from the discipline of philosophy. | |||
=== 2019: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09402-x A critical analysis of Australia’s ban on the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems] === | |||
* Australia does not allow adult smokers to buy or use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) that contain nicotine without a prescription. This paper critically evaluates the empirical and ethical justifications provided for the policy by Federal and State governments, public health advocates and health organisations. | |||
* We also argue that even if the evidence were stronger, it would not justify denying adult smokers the right to use ENDS either to quit smoking or as a long-term alternative to smoking cigarettes. | |||
* We outline ENDS policies that would more ethically address the public health concerns that motivated the current policy by allowing adult smokers to access ENDS for smoking cessation or tobacco harm reduction under tight regulations that discourage commercial promotion and adolescent use. | |||
* Hall, W., Morphett, K. & Gartner, C. A ''Neuroethics'' '''14''' (Suppl 3), 323–331 (2021). <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09402-x</nowiki> | |||
=Mental Health= | =Mental Health= | ||
| Line 201: | Line 216: | ||
===See Also=== | ===See Also=== | ||
*[[ | *[[Nicotine therapeutic benefits|Mental Health under: Nicotine Therapeutic Benefits]] | ||
| Line 235: | Line 250: | ||
=Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use= | =Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use= | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37544328/ Medicalisation of vaping in the UK? E-cigarette users' perspectives on the merging of commercial and medical routes to vaping.] === | |||
* An important paper, investigates the co-existence, synergies and tensions between the two models of vaping for public health - the medicalised and consumer-based approaches - drawing on the insights of users. Great subject, because these two models have entirely different modes of engagement and action. We would ideally like both to work, but it could be problematic if one compromised the impact of the other. | |||
** Three qualitative themes were identified: pro-partnership, anti-partnership and medicalisation dissonance. Medicalisation was discussed for its potential to reassure smokers about e-cigarette harms and its potential to reach smokers from disadvantaged backgrounds. Concerns were raised about cost-effectiveness, quality of support, conflicts of interest and limiting product choice. Most participants rated interventions involving partnership working as potentially helpful in switching from smoking to vaping. There were no statistically significant associations between age, gender and socioeconomic status, and helpfulness ratings. | |||
* Being qualitative, the paper is sprinkled with revealing quotes from vapers... e.g. | |||
** [Millions of] people are now using e-cigarettes in the UK and that this change came about with no involvement of any health professionals whatever. My guess is that the best thing would be for health professionals to leave things as they are, while doing everything they can to counteract adverse media reportage and trumpet the benefits of switching from smoking to e-cigarette use. (Survey participant 21) | |||
* The authors see complementary benefits in pursuing both models... | |||
** Conclusion: Both commercial and medical routes to vaping offer perceived benefits to vapers and may complement and reinforce each other to support smoking cessation. | |||
* Ward E, Dawkins L, Holland R, Pope I, Notley C. Perspect Public Health. 2023 Aug 6:17579139231185481. doi: 10.1177/17579139231185481. Online ahead of print. PMID: 37544328 | |||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37182238/ Awareness and beliefs about FDA e-cigarette regulation in the premarket application review era.] === | === 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37182238/ Awareness and beliefs about FDA e-cigarette regulation in the premarket application review era.] === | ||
* A survey of awareness and attitudes about regulation of e-cigarettes, among adults who smoke and youth (15-20): | * A survey of awareness and attitudes about regulation of e-cigarettes, among adults who smoke and youth (15-20): | ||
* Awareness that FDA regulates e-cigarettes was low among adults who smoke (25.4 %) and youth (18.5 %). Awareness that FDA authorizes e-cigarettes was also low among adults who smoke (10.8 %) and youth (12.7 %). | * Awareness that FDA regulates e-cigarettes was low among adults who smoke (25.4 %) and youth (18.5 %). Awareness that FDA authorizes e-cigarettes was also low among adults who smoke (10.8 %) and youth (12.7 %). | ||
| Line 302: | Line 326: | ||
===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29570695/ Lack of Substantial Post-Cessation Weight Increase in Electronic Cigarettes Users]=== | ===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29570695/ Lack of Substantial Post-Cessation Weight Increase in Electronic Cigarettes Users]=== | ||
“Conclusion: Within the study limitations, EC use may help smokers attenuate cigarette consumption or remain abstinent, as well as reduce their post-cessation weight increase. The potential role of the e-vapour category for harm minimization in relation to tobacco and/or food abuse requires confirmation from larger prospective studies. Moreover, the observed lack of post-cessation weight gain in those who reduced substantially cigarette consumption by switching to ECs (i.e., dual users) is an interesting finding and calls for further research investigating the role of nicotine in weight control. Meanwhile, these preliminary findings should be communicated to smokers and particularly to weight-conscious smokers intending to quit. | *“Conclusion: Within the study limitations, EC use may help smokers attenuate cigarette consumption or remain abstinent, as well as reduce their post-cessation weight increase. The potential role of the e-vapour category for harm minimization in relation to tobacco and/or food abuse requires confirmation from larger prospective studies. Moreover, the observed lack of post-cessation weight gain in those who reduced substantially cigarette consumption by switching to ECs (i.e., dual users) is an interesting finding and calls for further research investigating the role of nicotine in weight control. Meanwhile, these preliminary findings should be communicated to smokers and particularly to weight-conscious smokers intending to quit. | ||
By combining substantial reduction of smoking with prevention of post-cessation weight gain, EC-based interventions may promote an overall improvement in quality of life. Considering that the negative effects of weight increase could overshadow the health benefits of smoking abstinence, it is important to stimulate more research in this area.” | *By combining substantial reduction of smoking with prevention of post-cessation weight gain, EC-based interventions may promote an overall improvement in quality of life. Considering that the negative effects of weight increase could overshadow the health benefits of smoking abstinence, it is important to stimulate more research in this area.” | ||
===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28525609/ E-cigarettes and Weight Loss—Product Design Innovation Insights From Industry Patents]=== | ===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28525609/ E-cigarettes and Weight Loss—Product Design Innovation Insights From Industry Patents]=== | ||
| Line 334: | Line 357: | ||
=Suggested studies to add to this page= | =Suggested studies to add to this page= | ||
[[File:Data reliability.png|alt=The data reliability pyramid. Shows the quality of various data from expert opinion at the bottom to systematic review at the top (lowest quality at bottom, highest at top)|center|frame|The data reliability pyramid]] | |||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37041005/ Vaping: Government announces "swap to stop" scheme to cut smoking rates.] === | === 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37041005/ Vaping: Government announces "swap to stop" scheme to cut smoking rates.] === | ||
* One million smokers in England will be given a free vaping starter kit as part of a government package of measures to get smoking rates below 5% by 2030 | * One million smokers in England will be given a free vaping starter kit as part of a government package of measures to get smoking rates below 5% by 2030 | ||
* Comment and write up in BMJ of UK policy. | * Comment and write up in BMJ of UK policy. | ||
| Line 361: | Line 384: | ||
* ''Baseline e-cigarette use did not increase the odds of having functionally important respiratory symptoms at follow-up regardless of combustible tobacco use status.''<br /> | * ''Baseline e-cigarette use did not increase the odds of having functionally important respiratory symptoms at follow-up regardless of combustible tobacco use status.''<br /> | ||
Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | ||
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | [[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | ||
[[Category:THR Advocacy Group]] | |||
[[Category:Smoking cessation]] | |||
edits