Search

The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group has created risk of bias tools, which are topic‐agnostic. In 2012 the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group created guidance specific to considerations for reviews of randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions, building on existing Cochrane tools. The guidance covers issues relating to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and selective reporting. In this paper, we set out to make this guidance publicly available, so that others can use and cite it. We provide advice for using this tool to appraise trials critically as a systematic reviewer. We also provide guidance for triallists on ways to use this tool to improve trial design and reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Among European countries, France is particularly concerned by adolescent tobacco smoking, especially in disadvantaged socio‐economic backgrounds (SES). We measured the respective contributions of parental smoking and family living arrangement to social disparities in smoking during adolescence. Design: Secondary analysis of survey data. Setting: A cross‐sectional nation‐wide exhaustive 12‐day survey in March 2017 of French youth aged 17–18.5 years participating in the national mandatory civic information day. Participants: A total of 13 314 adolescents answering a pen‐and‐paper questionnaire about their own tobacco consumption and the smoking of their parents. Measurements Risk ratios (RRs) were computed using modified Poisson regressions, and population‐attributable fraction (PAF) was used as a measure of the explanatory roles of the different factors as mediators of SES. Findings Adolescents living within very privileged and privileged SES were significantly less likely to report daily tobacco smoking (20.4 and 22.7%, respectively) than those within modest and disadvantaged ones (26.0 and 28.6%, respectively). Parental smoking and family living arrangement independently explained the smoking inequalities among adolescents. After adjusting for schooling factors, the risks associated with parental smoking ranged between RR = 1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.50–1.79] when the father only smoked and RR = 2.17 (95% CI = 1.99–2.36) when both parents smoked, compared with non‐smoking parents; the risk associated with living in a non‐intact family was 1.35 (95% CI = 1.26–1.43) and that of living outside the parental home was 1.20 (95% CI = 1.10–1.30). Apprentices and adolescents out of school had higher risks than those at school (RR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.68–1.98) and RR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.92–2.29). The contribution of parental smoking to adolescent smoking (PAF = 32%) was greater than that of SES (PAF = 9%), family living arrangement (PAF = 17%) or schooling factors (14%). The share of SES decreased from 18 to 9% when considering these mediating factors. Conclusion: In France, parental smoking appears to be the factor that most influences adolescent smoking, followed by family living arrangement; the role of family socio‐economic status is small in comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Ontologies are ways of representing information that improve clarity and the ability to connect different data sources. This paper proposes an initial version of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products with the aim of reducing ambiguity and confusion in the field. Methods: Terms related to tobacco, nicotine and vaping products were identified in the research literature and their usage characterised. Basic Formal Ontology was used as a unifying upper‐level ontology to describe the domain, and classes with definitions and labels were developed linking them to this ontology. Labels, definitions and properties were reviewed and revised in an iterative manner until a coherent set of classes was agreed by the authors. Results: Overlapping, but distinct classes were developed: 'tobacco‐containing product', 'nicotine‐containing product' and 'vaping device'. Subclasses of tobacco‐containing products are 'combustible tobacco‐containing product', 'heated tobacco product' and 'smokeless tobacco‐containing product'. Subclasses of combustible tobacco‐containing product include 'cigar', 'cigarillo', 'bidi' and 'cigarette' with further subclasses including 'manufactured cigarette'. Manufactured cigarettes have properties that include 'machine‐smoked nicotine yield' and 'machine‐smoked tar yield'. Subclasses of smokeless tobacco product include 'nasal snuff', 'chewing tobacco product', and 'oral snuff' with its subclass 'snus'. Subclasses of nicotine‐containing product include 'nicotine lozenge' and 'nicotine transdermal patch'. Subclasses of vaping device included 'electronic vaping device' with a further subclass, 'e‐cigarette'. E‐cigarettes have evolved with a complex range of properties including atomiser resistance, battery power, properties of consumables including e‐liquid nicotine concentration and flavourings, and the ontology characterises classes of product accordingly. Conclusions: Use of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products should help reduce ambiguity and confusion in tobacco control research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Reports of youth e‐cigarette use often do not disaggregate by underlying smoking status. This study compared annual 2014–19 youth estimates of past 30‐day e‐cigarette use prevalence and frequency by smoking status in the United States. Design Nationally representative, cross‐sectional, school‐based survey [National Youth Tobacco Surveys (NYTS)]. General linear models accounting for complex survey design compared e‐cigarette use prevalence by smoking status by year, overall and stratified by frequency, separately for high school (HS) and middle school (MS) students. The 2019 survey was analyzed separately because of its change in survey methodology. Setting: MSs and HSs in the United States. Participants: A total of 116 704 students from 1268 schools, ages 9–19. Measurements Students self‐reported (paper 2014–18, electronic 2019) ever and past 30‐day (current) use of e‐cigarettes and cigarettes, as well as frequent use (20–30 days of month). Findings From 2014 to 2018, current e‐cigarette use prevalence increased among never, current and former smokers in HS, but only among never and current smokers in MS (each P‐value < 0.001). E‐cigarette use increases for current HS smokers were primarily among frequent e‐cigarette users. In 2018, the absolute number of HS frequent users who were never or former smokers (420 000 combined) surpassed current smokers (370 000). In 2019, current e‐cigarette use prevalence for never, former and current smokers was 17.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.0–19.0], 53.6% (95% CI = 45.2–61.9) and 85.8% (95% CI = 81.6–89.9) for HS students, respectively, and 6.8% (95% CI = 5.9–7.7), 40.8% (95% CI = 34.7–47.0) and 78.0% (95% CI = 71.9–84.2) for MS students. That year, the number of HS never (420 000) and former smokers (570 000) using e‐cigarettes frequently eclipsed that of current smokers (390 000). Conclusions: E‐cigarette use prevalence and frequency among youth vary by smoking status, with highest levels of use among current smokers. However frequent e‐cigarette use among never smokers and former smokers has increased. [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]

The article comments on a paper by H. Tattan-Birch and colleagues on the impact of the increase use of disposable vapes among young adults on the implementation of policy in the United Kingdom. Topics mentioned include the need of policy actions that should impact both young adults, smokers, and vapers, the importance of considering the evidence before making policy decisions to avoid unintended consequences, and the difficulty of using target advertising to promote disposables.

A correction to a paper printed in a prior issue is presented, written by Berridge et al., which discusses policy around electronic nicotine delivery systems.