Search

Objective To identify effective policies and non-policy interventions preventing youth vaping behaviour initiation and assess their effectiveness by the level of intrusiveness and subpopulations.Design This systematic rapid review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sources Searches on MEDLINE and APA-PsycINFO for studies published between January 2019 and November 2023.Eligibility criteria Observational, intervention or mixed-method studies and quantitative systematic reviews/meta-analyses measuring the impact of interventions on youth (6–18 years) who never vaped or who had experimentally vaped.Data extraction and synthesis A predesigned form was used to extract data. To classify interventions by levels of intrusiveness, we used the PLACE Research Lab Intervention Ladder Policy Analysis Framework. We applied PROGRESS-Plus (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation,Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, and additional context-specific factors) for an equity analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool.Results 20 studies were included: 45% were experiments or quasiexperiments, 85% reported data from the USA, 65% were non-policy interventions and 40% and 35% measured susceptibility and attitudes and behaviours related to vaping, respectively. Considering the level of intrusiveness, 45% of the studies provided information and 25% eliminated choices. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low. The effectiveness of interventions regarding their level of intrusiveness varied by each outcome. No clear pattern was found between the level of intrusiveness and intervention effectiveness, suggesting that overall, the studied interventions positively changed youth vaping behaviours. Some interventions had positive effects on multiple outcomes. Equity-related findings suggested that younger youth may be less responsive to the interventions. Recommendations for action are provided.Conclusions We suggest that combining multiple interventions targeting different levels of intrusiveness and outcomes may be more effective in preventing youth vaping behaviours. Also important is to tailor programmes to younger youth to better meet their needs.

Background: Chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) has been identified as a top priority in primary care. However, primary care providers often lack time, evidence-based tools, and consistent guidelines to effectively address CDPS. Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) is a novel approach that introduces a new role, that of the prevention practitioner; the prevention practitioner meets with patients, one on one, to undertake a personalised CDPS visit. Understanding patients’ perspectives is important for clinicians and other stakeholders aiming to address and integrate CDPS. Aim: To describe patients’ perspectives regarding visits with a prevention practitioner in BETTER 2, an implementation study that was carried out after the BETTER trial and featured a higher proportion of patients in rural and remote locations.Design & setting: Qualitative description based on patient feedback surveys, completed by patients in three primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Method: Patients’ perspectives were assessed based on responses from 91 feedback forms. In total, 154 patients (aged 40–65 years) received ≥1 prevention visit(s) from a prevention practitioner and were asked to provide written feedback. In addition to demographics, patients were asked what they liked about their visit(s), what they would have liked to be different, and invited to make any other comments. Qualitative description was used to analyse the data. Results: Four main themes emerged from patients’ feedback: value of visit (patients appreciated the visit with a prevention practitioner); visit characteristics (the visit was personalised, comprehensive, and sufficiently long); prevention practitioners' characteristics (professionalism and interpersonal skills); and patients’ concerns (termination of the programme and access to preventative care). Conclusion: Patients appreciated the visits they received with a prevention practitioner and expressed their desire to receive sustained CDPS in primary care.

Public health discipline and practice have prioritized work on poverty and populations at high risk for material deprivation, with less consideration for the full spectrum of financial circumstances relative to well-being. Public health can make a much-needed contribution to this area, which is currently dominated by the financial industry, focused on individual behaviors, and lacking the definitional consensus needed for research and evaluation. A population-level lens can reveal the social determinants and health consequences of real or perceived poor financial circumstances. This article aims to improve conceptual understanding of financial circumstances among public health scholars and professionals. We identified concepts through a critical literature review of peer-reviewed and practice-based resources on financial well-being and financial strain. We developed a glossary of concepts related to financial circumstances and categorized concepts according to their level of influence using an approach informed by socioecological models. We provide a concept map that illustrates the relationships between concepts in the context of their levels of influence. This article will help to advance an agenda on financial well-being promotion in public health research and practice. ( Am J Public Health. 2024;114(1):79-89. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307449).