Person:

Tan, Andy

Objectives: E-cigarettes are frequently advertised and portrayed in the media as less harmful compared with regular cigarettes. Earlier surveys reported public perceptions of harms to people using e-cigarettes; however, public perceptions of harms from exposure to secondhand vapour (SHV) have not been studied. We examined associations between self-reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising, media coverage, and interpersonal discussion and perceived harms of SHV. Design: Observational study. Setting: National online sample of US adults aged ≥18 years. Participants: 1449 US adults (mean age 49.5 years), 51.3% female, 76.6% non-Hispanic Caucasian, 7.5% African-American, 10.0% Hispanic and 5.9% other races. Outcomes Perceived harm measures included (1) harmfulness of SHV to one's health, (2) concern about health impact of breathing SHV and (3) comparative harm of SHV versus secondhand smoke (SHS). Predictors were (1) self-reported frequency of exposure to e-cigarette advertising, media coverage and interpersonal discussion (close friends or family) and (2) perceived valence of exposure from each source. Covariates were demographic characteristics, cigarette smoking status and e-cigarette use, and were weighted to the general US adult population. Results: More frequent interpersonal discussion was associated with lower perceived harmfulness of SHV to one's health and lower perceived comparative harm of SHV versus SHS. Frequency of e-cigarette ad and other media exposure were not significant predictors. Perceived negative valence of ad exposure and interpersonal discussion (vs no exposure) was associated with higher perceived harm across all three outcomes, while negative valence of media coverage was associated with higher concern about health impact of breathing SHV. Perceived positive valence (vs no exposure) of interpersonal discussion was associated with lower perceived harm across all three outcomes about health impact of breathing SHV. Conclusions: Exposure to information about e-cigarettes through advertising, media coverage and interpersonal discussion could play a role in shaping public perceptions of the harmfulness of SHV.

Background: Policies designed to restrict marketing, access to, and public use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasingly under debate in various jurisdictions in the US. Little is known about public perceptions of these policies and factors that predict their support or opposition. Methods: Using a sample of US adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk in May 2015, this paper identifies beliefs about the benefits and costs of regulating e-cigarettes and identifies which of these beliefs predict support for e-cigarette restricting policies. Results: A higher proportion of respondents agreed with 8 different reasons to regulate ecigarettes (48.5% to 83.3% agreement) versus 7 reasons not to regulate e-cigarettes (11.5% to 18.9%). The majority of participants agreed with 7 out of 8 reasons for regulation. When all reasons to regulate or not were included in a final multivariable model, beliefs about protecting people from secondhand vapor and protecting youth from trying e-cigarettes significantly predicted stronger support for e-cigarette restricting policies, whereas concern about government intrusion into individual choices was associated with reduced support. Discussion: This research identifies key beliefs that may underlie public support or opposition to policies designed to regulate the marketing and use of e-cigarettes. Advocates on both sides of the issue may find this research valuable in developing strategic campaigns related to the issue. Implications: Specific beliefs of potential benefits and costs of e-cigarette regulation (protecting youth, preventing exposure to secondhand vapor, and government intrusion into individual choices) may be effectively deployed by policy makers or health advocates in communicating with the public.

Objectives: In November 2019, the Massachusetts legislature passed An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control and became the first state to restrict retail sales of all flavored (including menthol) cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and other tobacco products (the Act). Additional tobacco control policies and health insurance coverage for tobacco treatment were included as part of the Act. Implementation of these policies occurred between November 2019 and June 2020. This study explored challenges and facilitators during the implementation of the Act experienced by public health officials, school personnel, and healthcare providers.

Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 9 public health officials and advocates, 9 school personnel, and 8 healthcare providers from March to December 2021. We conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts using inductive codes of key themes emerging from the interviews.

Results: Interviewees highlighted three key themes that impacted the implementation of the Act: 1) Education of those impacted by the Act, 2) Organizational-level changes to incorporate the Act, and 3) Enforcement challenges. Examples of challenges to the implementation of the Act included COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, navigating tobacco industry tactics around naming flavors, and confusion regarding health insurance coverage for tobacco use cessation programs. Examples of facilitators were enforcement leading to retailer compliance, committed advocacy efforts of leadership/champions, and strong coordination within and between organizations.

Conclusions: These findings of Massachusetts's experience in policy implementation can inform the preparation to implement similar tobacco control policies in other states.

Keywords: Advocacy; Education; Implementation; Schools; Tobacco legislation.

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have grown in popularity, especially among youth and young adults. Although e-cigarettes were originally intended to vaporize a liquid mixture containing nicotine, there appears to be an increasing trend in other substance use in e-cigarettes (OSUE). Materials and methods: Cross-sectional data from 1542 undergraduate college student e-cigarette users from a large Midwestern university were collected via online survey to assess prevalence of e-cigarette use, reasons for use, perceived harm, and prevalence and predictors of OSUE. Results: Nearly 7% (6.94%) reported using an e-cigarette to vaporize and inhale a substance other than nicotine. Current tobacco cigarette smokers were significantly more likely to report OSUE (51.0%) as compared with never (33.7%) and former (15.4%) smokers. Among respondents reporting OSUE, the primary reason for e-cigarette use was “safer than cigarettes” (21.7%), followed by “experimentation” (18.9%) and “friends use” (17.0%). Most (77.9%) reported using cannabis or some derivative of cannabis in an e-cigarette. Binomial logistic regression found that women were less likely to report OSUE by a factor of 0.60, former tobacco cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers were more likely to report OSUE by a factor of 1.87, and e-cigarette users who reported using e-cigarettes for “cool or trendy” reasons were more likely to report OSUE by a factor of 2.89. Discussion: Little is known regarding the health effects of cannabis and cannabis derivatives delivered through e-cigarettes. Concern may also be warranted regarding the potential dangers of this young population using substances more dangerous than cannabis in e-cigarettes. Knowledge is limited regarding the public health impact of vaping cannabis or other illicit substances among college student populations. This study stresses the need for continued research regarding the vaping of cannabis and other illicit substances among college students.