Search

Background and aims Regulation of electronic cigarettes has moved to the top of the addiction policy agenda, as demonstrated by the recent focus across the United Kingdom on introducing age-of-sale restrictions. However, the views of those affected by such regulation remain largely unexplored. This paper presents the first detailed qualitative exploration of adolescents' perceptions of existing, and opinions about potential e-cigarette regulation. Methods Sixteen focus groups, including a total of 83 teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 years, were conducted in deprived, mixed and affluent urban areas in Scotland and England between November 2014 and February 2015. Transcripts were imported into Nivivo 10, coded thematically and analysed. Results Participants critically considered existing evidence and competing interests in regulatory debates and demonstrated sophisticated understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of regulation. They overwhelmingly supported strong e-cigarette regulation and endorsed restrictions on sales to minors, marketing and e-cigarette use in public places. Concern about potential health harms of e-cigarette use and marketing increasing the acceptability of vaping and smoking led these adolescents to support regulation. Conclusions In focus group discussions, a sample of UK adolescents exposed to particular communications about e-cigarettes supported strict regulation of e-cigarettes, including banning sales to minors and use in indoor public areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To examine whether receipt of alcohol industry sponsorship is associated with problematic drinking in UK university students who play sport. Methods University students ( n = 2450) participating in sports were invited to complete a pen-and-paper questionnaire by research staff approaching them at sporting facilities and in university settings. Respondents were asked whether they, personally, their team and/or their club were currently in receipt of sponsorship (e.g. money, free or subsidized travel or sporting products) from an alcohol-related industry (e.g. bars, liquor stores, wholesalers), and whether they had solicited the sponsorship. Drinking was assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test ( AUDIT). Results Questionnaires were completed by 2048 of those approached (response rate = 83%). Alcohol industry sponsorship was reported by 36% of the sample. After accounting for confounders (age, gender, disposable income and location) in multivariable models, receipt of alcohol sponsorship by a team (adjusted βadj = 0.41, P = 0.013), club (βadj = 0.73, P = 0.017), team and club (βadj = 0.79, P = 0.002) and combinations of individual and team or club sponsorships (βadj = 1.27, P < 0.002) were each associated with significantly higher AUDIT-consumption substance scores. Receipt of sponsorship by team and club [adjusted odds ratio ( aOR) = 2.04; 95% confidence interval ( CI) = 1.04-3.99] and combinations of individual and team or club sponsorships ( aOR = 4.12; 95% CI = 1.29-13.15) were each associated with increased odds of being classified a hazardous drinker ( AUDIT score >8). Respondents who sought out sponsorship were not at greater risk than respondents, or whose teams or clubs, had been approached by the alcohol industry. Conclusions University students in the United Kingdom who play sport and who personally receive alcohol industry sponsorship or whose club or team receives alcohol industry sponsorship appear to have more problematic drinking behaviour than UK university students who play sport and receive no alcohol industry sponsorship. Policy to reduce or cease such sponsorship should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and aims: Estimating ‘return on investment’ (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires reach and effectiveness parameters for interventions for use in economic models such as the EQUIPT ROI tool ( http://roi.equipt.eu). This paper describes the derivation of these parameter estimates for England that can be adapted to create ROI models for use by other countries. Methods: Estimates were derived for interventions in terms of their reach and effectiveness in: (1) promoting quit attempts and (2) improving the success of quit attempts (abstinence for at least 12 months). The sources were systematic reviews of efficacy supplemented by individual effectiveness evaluations and national surveys. Findings: Quit attempt rates were estimated to be increased by the following percentages (with reach in parentheses): 20% by tax increases raising the cost of smoking 5% above the cost of living index (100%); 10% by enforced comprehensive indoor public smoking bans (100%); 3% by mass media campaigns achieving 400 gross rating points (100%); 40% by brief opportunistic physician advice (21%); and 110% by use of a licensed nicotine product to reduce cigarette consumption (12%). Quit success rates were estimated to be increased by the following ratios: 60% by single‐form nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (5%); 114% by NRT patch plus a faster‐acting NRT (2%);124% by prescribed varenicline (5%); 60% by bupropion (1%); 100% by nortriptyline (0%), 10) 298% by cytisine (0%); 40% by individual face‐to‐face behavioural support (2%); 37% by telephone support (0.5%); 88% by group behavioural support (1%); 63% by text messaging (0.5%); and 19% by printed self‐help materials (1%). There was insufficient evidence to obtain reliable, country‐specific estimates for interventions such as websites, smartphone applications and e‐cigarettes. Conclusions: Tax increases, indoor smoking bans, brief opportunistic physician advice and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking reduction can all increase population quit attempt rates. Quit success rates can be increased by provision of NRT, varenicline, bupropion, nortriptyline, cytisine and behavioural support delivered through a variety of modalities. Parameter estimates for the effectiveness and reach of these interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]