Search

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 significant role of the community in the lives of children and youth at-risk has become increasingly clear to social work academics and professionals over the last three decades. Alongside the more traditional individual and family responses, community interventions have been designed to catalyze change in the environment of children and youth at-risk and supply holistic and sustainable responses to their needs. Ten such community intervention programs were identified from the United States, Australia, Canada, and Israel. Most employed the community development model, focused on developing leadership and social capital (improving community networking) and advancing coordination between the organizations and sectors in the field of risk among children and youth. The diverse programs reviewed focused both on at-risk children and youth in general or specifically on child abuse and neglect. The programs originated from different health, education, and welfare disciplines and sponsoring authorities. The majority were funded originally by private foundations; however, government involvement was significant, particularly in the adoption and support of initiatives after their development. The current analysis of the programs refers to core issues that arose from the review: professional orientation, main target unit, main initiator, and research and evaluation. Analysis of program characteristics enables identifying relevant aspects of these programs for use by policy, governmental, and nonprofit sector stakeholders seeking to develop similar programs. Conclusions and recommendations to advance the field are suggested considering the current context of government cuts in welfare funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]