Search

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e‐cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e‐cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e‐cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e‐cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The pathways model is a highly cited etiological model of problem gambling. In the past two decades, a number of studies have found support for the model's utility in classifying gambling subtypes. The aims of this paper were to refine empirically the model subtypes and to revise and update the model based on those findings. Design and Measurement: Observational study using data collected from treatment‐seeking problem gamblers using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and the Gambling Pathways Questionnaire (GPQ). Setting: Treatment clinics in Canada, Australia and the United States. Participants: A convenience sample of 1168 treatment‐seeking problem gamblers, aged 18 years or older. Findings Empirically validated risk factors were analyzed using latent class analyses, identifying a three‐class solution as the best‐fitting model. Those in the largest class (class 1: 44.3%, n = 517) reported the lowest levels of all etiological risk factors. Participants in class 2 (39.5%, n = 461) reported the highest rates of anxiety and depression, both before and after gambling became a problem, as well as childhood maltreatment, and a high level of gambling for stress‐coping. Those in class 3 (16.3%, n = 190) reported high levels of impulsivity; risk‐taking, including sexual risk‐taking; antisocial traits; and coping to provide meaning in life and to alleviate stress. Conclusions: The revised pathways model of problem gambling includes three classes of gamblers similar to the three subtypes in the original pathways model, but class 3 in the revised pathways model is distinct from class 2, showing higher levels of risk‐taking and antisocial traits and gambling motivated by a desire for meaning/purpose and/or to alleviate stress. Class 2 in the revised pathways model demonstrates high levels of childhood maltreatment as well as gambling for stress‐coping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti‐smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non‐government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi‐day face‐to‐face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]