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]

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: Previous analyses of the effect of e‐cigarettes on real world smoking cessation success have mainly been based on surveys undertaken in the United States and United Kingdom, where nicotine e‐cigarettes can be readily obtained. In Australia, regulations have made obtaining e‐cigarettes containing nicotine difficult. The effectiveness of e‐cigarette use as a smoking cessation aid in Australia might therefore be lower than survey‐based estimates published to date. This study aimed to estimate the effect of using e‐cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt on past‐year smoking cessation success in Australia. Design: Multivariable logistic regression models for past‐year smoking cessation success. Setting and participants: Respondents to the 2019 wave of Australia's National Drug Strategy Household Survey who made a smoking cessation attempt in the 12 months leading up to the survey. Measurements Past‐year smoking cessation success was assumed if a smoking cessation attempt resulted in abstinence of more than a month at the time of the survey. Findings In 2019, Australians who attempted to quit smoking using e‐cigarettes achieved greater success than smokers attempting to quit without e‐cigarettes [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09–2.60]. If people who only tried e‐cigarettes once or twice are considered not to have used e‐cigarettes, the estimated effect was slightly stronger (aOR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.27–3.10). Also, the estimated odds ratio was higher among vapers who acquired their e‐cigarettes from overseas websites (aOR = 2.24; 95% CI = 1.02–4.93). Conclusions: Use of e‐cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt appears to be associated with greater success among Australians who attempted to quit tobacco in 2019 compared with Australians attempting to quit without e‐cigarettes, after adjusting for confounding effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe an outbreak of lung injuries in 2019 among people who vaped in the United States (type of injuries, people afflicted, substances vaped and cause of the injuries) and to analyse critically the regulatory responses of public health authorities and the media reporting of the outbreak. Methods: Case studies of the reporting of the e‐cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak. We examined data on the number of cases of lung injury provided by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), public advice on the causes of the outbreak provided by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), major media reports of the outbreak and proposed regulatory responses by governments in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Results: The CDC initially suggested that the cause of the outbreak was nicotine vaping because the outbreak followed a large increase in nicotine vaping among US adolescents. Case–control studies revealed that the majority of cases had vaped illicit cannabis oils that were contaminated by vitamin E acetate. The CDC's public advice and the media were slow to report the evidence on the role of cannabis vaping. Popular government regulatory proposals—bans on sales of nicotine flavours and vaporizers—were based on the assumption that nicotine vaping was the cause of the outbreak. Conclusions: Media reporting in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom of the US Centers for Disease Control's analysis of the causes of the e‐cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury outbreak contributed to regulatory over‐reactions to nicotine vaping by the public health community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine whether norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use varied between Australia, Canada, England and the United States and by socio‐demographics, smoking and NVP status. Design Cross‐sectional data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Setting: Four countries with distinct regulatory policies relating to the sale and advertising of NVPs: Australia (most restrictive), Canada (restrictive), England and the United States (least restrictive). Participants: A total of 10900 adult (age 18+) current smokers, former smokers, or at least weekly NVP users. Respondents were from Australia (n = 1366), Canada (n = 3309), England (n = 3835) and the United States (n = 2390). Measurements Questions permitted the categorization of respondents as current smokers, former smokers, NVP users and socio‐demographic categories (sex, age, country, ethnicity, income and education). Further questions were asked regarding the frequency of exposure to NVPs in public, whether they had a partner or close friends who vaped and whether they believed society or those considered important to them approved of NVPs. Findings Adjusting for relevant covariates, compared with Australian respondents, those in England, Canada and the United States were more likely to report frequent exposure to NVPs in public (83.1%, 57.3% and 48.3%, respectively, compared to 19.8% in Australia; P < 0.0001), having a partner who vaped (13.8%, 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively, compared to 2.1% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and having close friend(s) who vaped (31.7%, 25.3%, 20.9%, respectively, compared to 10.0% in Australia; P < 0.0001). Compared with Australian respondents, respondents from England were more likely to report that society (27.6% compared to 12.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and people important to them approved of NVP use (28.9% compared to 14.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use appear to vary among countries with different regulatory contexts regarding sales and advertising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Debate exists about whether health professionals (HPs) should advise smokers to use nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to quit smoking. The objectives were to examine in four countries: (1) the prevalence of HP discussions and recommendations to use an NVP; (2) who initiated NVP discussions; (3) the type of HP advice received about NVPs; and (4) smoker's characteristics related to receiving advice about NVPs. Design Cross‐sectional study using multivariable logistic regression analyses on weighted data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV1). Setting: Four countries with varying regulations governing the sale and marketing of NVPs: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'restrictive' (Canada) or 'less restrictive' (England and United States). Participants: A total of 6615 adult smokers who reported having visited an HP in the last year (drawn from the total sample of 12 294 4CV1 respondents, of whom 9398 reported smoking cigarettes daily or weekly). Respondents were from the United States (n = 1518), England (n = 2116), Australia (n = 1046), and Canada (n = 1935). Measurements Participants' survey responses indicated if they were current daily or weekly smokers and had visited an HP in the past year. Among those participants, further questions asked participants to report (1) whether NVPs were discussed, (2) who raised the topic, (3) advice received on use of NVPs and (4) advice received on quitting smoking. Findings Among the 6615 smokers who visited an HP in the last year, 6.8% reported discussing NVPs with an HP and 2.1% of smokers were encouraged to use an NVP (36.1% of those who had a discussion). Compared with Australia (4.3%), discussing NVPs with an HP was more likely in the United States [8.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41–3.29] and Canada (7.8%, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.26–2.78). Smokers in Australia were less likely to discuss NVPs than smokers in England (6.2%), although this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.98–2.20). Overall, the prevalence of HPs recommending NVPs was three times more likely in the United States than in Australia (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.45–6.47), and twice as likely in Canada (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.06–4.87) than in Australia. Australia and England did not differ (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.83–3.74). Just over half (54%) of respondents brought up NVPs themselves; there were no significant differences among countries. Conclusions: Discussions in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States between smokers and health professionals about nicotine vaping products appear to be infrequent, regardless of the regulatory environment. A low percentage of health professionals recommended vaping products. This was particularly evident in Australia, which has the most restrictive regulatory environment of the four countries studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Reducing the burden of physical illness among people living with severe mental illnesses (SMI) is a key priority. Smoking is strongly associated with SMIs resulting in excessive smoking related morbidity and mortality in smokers with SMI. Smoking cessation advice and assistance from mental health practitioners would assist with reducing smoking and smoking‐related harms in this group. This study examined the attitudes and practices of Australian mental health practitioners towards smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction for smokers with SMI, including adherence to the 5As (ask, assess, advise, assist and arrange follow up) of smoking cessation. We surveyed 267 Australian mental health practitioners using a cross‐sectional, online survey. Most practitioners (77.5%) asked their clients about smoking and provided health education (66.7%) but fewer provided direct assistance (31.1–39.7%). Most believed that tobacco harm reduction strategies are effective for reducing smoking related risks (88.4%) and that abstinence from all nicotine should not be the only goal discussed with smokers with SMI (77.9%). Many respondents were unsure about the safety (56.9%) and efficacy (39.3%) of e‐cigarettes. Practitioners trained in smoking cessation were more likely (OR: 2.9, CI: 1.5–5.9) to help their clients to stop smoking. Community mental health practitioners (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.9) and practitioners who were current smokers (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.9) were less likely to adhere to the 5As of smoking cessation intervention. The results of this study emphasize the importance and need for providing smoking cessation training to mental health practitioners especially community mental health practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]