Search

Objective. To explore the association between reporting conflict of interest (COI) and having a positive outcome toward vaping in scientific articles. Methods. A cross-sectional study that analyzed a sample of 697 articles published between 2017 and 2020 regarding vaping. Information on the reporting of COI, type of COI (no conflict, conflict with the tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry, or other), and country of publication were collected. To explore the association between reporting COI and having a positive result for vaping, two logistic regression models were fitted, both adjusted by country of publication. Results. From 88 articles that reported COI, 23 reported COI with the tobacco industry, 44 with the pharmaceutical industry, and 21 reported another type of conflict. We found that reporting any type of COI increased by 4.7 times the odds (OR 4.70; 95% CI [2.89, 7.65]) of having a positive result for vaping. Additionally, compared to other countries, manuscripts published in England had 2 times higher odds (OR 2.40; 95% CI [1.16, 4.98]) of reporting a positive result for vaping. Reporting COI with the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries increased the odds of favorable results by 29 times (OR 29.95; 95% CI [9.84, 90.98]) and 2 times (OR 2.87; 95% CI [1.45, 5.69]), respectively. Conclusions. In scientific articles, reporting COI and having positive results for vaping are highly associated. COI should be considered and caution should be exercised when using data for policy-making.

Objectives. To evaluate the prevalence of exposure to Internet communications on and advertising of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and their association with perceptions of the social acceptability of e-cigarettes in Mexico. Methods. Data were analyzed from eight surveys (2018–2021) of an online sample of Mexican adult (> 18 years) smokers and dual users (of combustible and electronic cigarettes). Self-reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising across various marketing channels was assessed, as well as visits to e-cigarette websites. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between perceptions of the social acceptability of e-cigarette use and level of advertising exposure and visits to e-cigarette websites. Results. The Internet and outside e-cigarette stores were where exposure to advertising most occurred, as reported by 47.4% and 46.8% of respondents, respectively. Respondents who noticed e-cigarette advertisements on the Internet (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.25, 1.63), outside e-cigarette stores (adjusted OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14, 1.50), and in temporary outlets (adjusted OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01, 1.34), and those who visited e-cigarette websites (adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.25, 1.76) were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as socially acceptable. Noticing advertisements across more channels was also associated with higher perceived social acceptability of e-cigarette use. Conclusions. Being exposed to e-cigarette marketing, either online or through traditional marketing channels, is associated with perceived social acceptability of e-cigarette use, as is contact with provaping sites. Regulatory options to avoid the proliferation of promotional websites disguised as opinion or user sites need to be considered.