Benjamin R Brady1, Jennifer S De La Rosa2, Uma S Nair3, Scott J Leischow4. 1. Senior Research Specialist, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ;, Email: brb99@email.arizona.edu. 2. Evaluation Associate, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 3. Assistant Professor, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 4. College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Abstract
Objective: There is a lack of consensus on whether e-cigarettes facilitate or threaten existing tobacco prevention strategies. This uncertainty is reflected in organizations' conflicting e-cigarette position statements. We conducted a scoping review of position statements in published and gray literature to map the range and frequency of e-cigarette use recommendations. Methods: We collected 81 statements from international health organizations. Two coders independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize e-cigarette recommendations. We explored differences based on organization type, geography, and the year recommendations were published. Results: We identified 5 recommendation types: encourage smokers to use ecigarettes as a cessation aid or as an alternative source of nicotine (N = 5); support individuals who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking (N = 20); avoid using until more research is available (N = 19); restrict access based on available evidence (N = 30); and prohibit e-cigarette marketing and sale (N = 7). Conclusion: Organizations presented diverse e-cigarette use recommendations. The variation related to organizations' differing tobacco prevention priorities and level of confidence in current e-cigarette research. These differences may create confusion. Additional research can examine whether this variability influences stakeholders' attitudes or behavior.
Objective: There is a lack of consensus on whether e-cigarettes facilitate or threaten existing tobacco prevention strategies. This uncertainty is reflected in organizations' conflicting e-cigarette position statements. We conducted a scoping review of position statements in published and gray literature to map the range and frequency of e-cigarette use recommendations. Methods: We collected 81 statements from international health organizations. Two coders independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize e-cigarette recommendations. We explored differences based on organization type, geography, and the year recommendations were published. Results: We identified 5 recommendation types: encourage smokers to use ecigarettes as a cessation aid or as an alternative source of nicotine (N = 5); support individuals who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking (N = 20); avoid using until more research is available (N = 19); restrict access based on available evidence (N = 30); and prohibit e-cigarette marketing and sale (N = 7). Conclusion: Organizations presented diverse e-cigarette use recommendations. The variation related to organizations' differing tobacco prevention priorities and level of confidence in current e-cigarette research. These differences may create confusion. Additional research can examine whether this variability influences stakeholders' attitudes or behavior.
Authors: Micah D J Peters; Casey Marnie; Heather Colquhoun; Chantelle M Garritty; Susanne Hempel; Tanya Horsley; Etienne V Langlois; Erin Lillie; Kelly K O'Brien; Ӧzge Tunçalp; Michael G Wilson; Wasifa Zarin; Andrea C Tricco Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-08
Authors: Renee O'Leary; Maria Ahmed Qureshi; Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa; Robin W M Vernooij; Damian Chukwu Odimegwu; Gaetano Bertino; Riccardo Polosa Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Kim Pulvers; Nicole L Nollen; Myra Rice; Christopher H Schmid; Kexin Qu; Neal L Benowitz; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02