Search

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: In previous research, the spatial distribution of alcohol outlets has been shown to be related to the spatial distribution of crime. However, the spatial distribution of alcohol outlets is also related to the spatial distribution of other retail (and non‐retail) activities. We measured whether a residual relationship between alcohol outlets and crime remains statistically significant after controlling for retail density. Design and setting: A cross‐sectional analysis of area unit data for Hamilton, New Zealand. Measurements: We constructed index measures of retail density using principal component analysis, based on counts of retail outlets (non‐alcohol outlets alone and all outlets in total). We estimated the relationship between outlets and police calls‐for‐service using negative binomial regression, controlling for social deprivation, population and demographics. In our primary analysis, we employed a two‐stage process that first accounted for the correlation between calls‐for‐service and retail density in a negative binomial regression model, then tested for correlation between alcohol outlet counts and the first‐stage residuals. Findings The spatial distributions of retail outlets of all types were highly correlated with each other, and all types of retail outlets (alcohol and non‐alcohol) were correlated with crime, after controlling for social deprivation, population and demographics. After controlling for index measures of retail density and other controls, statistically significant semipartial correlations remained with counts of alcohol outlets of all types. For example, in our preferred specification, which controlled for non‐alcohol retail density in the first stage, an additional off‐licence alcohol outlet was associated with 97.34 (95% confidence interval = 36.66–158.0) additional police calls‐for service. Conclusions: There is a positive relationship between the spatial distribution of alcohol outlets and the spatial distribution of crime that appears to persist even after controlling for non‐alcohol retail density. The relationship between alcohol outlets and crime is not simply an artefact of retail geography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of alcohol on those other than the drinker is an under-researched area with important policy implications. This study is a first step in investigating relationships between exposure to heavy drinkers in respondent's lives with measures of health status and wellbeing. A cross-sectional general population survey was carried out among 3068 New Zealand residents aged 12-80 years (response rate 64%) using an in-house computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. Respondents' estimates of health status (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) and subjective wellbeing (Personal Wellbeing Index) were measured along with self-reports of heavy drinkers in their lives, demographic variables and own drinking. More than one in four of the sample had experienced someone they considered to be a heavy drinker in their environment in the past 12 months. An index of exposure to heavy drinkers, reflecting numbers of heavy drinkers and cohabitation, predicted lower health status and personal wellbeing while controlling for demographic variables and respondent's own drinking Cross-sectional data from a general population sample suggest that there is a relationship between exposure to heavy drinkers and reduced personal wellbeing and poorer health status. Exposure to heavy drinkers may have negative impacts for others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]