Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Bất bình đẳng, giảm thiểu tác hại và các sản phẩm nicotine không cháy: một siêu khảo sát về bằng chứng định tính
Tóm tắt
Chúng tôi đã tiến hành xem xét các bằng chứng định tính về cách mà những người hút thuốc trong các nhóm xã hội kinh tế khác nhau tương tác với các sản phẩm nicotine không cháy (NCNP), bao gồm cả thuốc lá điện tử và liệu pháp thay thế nicotine, nhằm cung cấp cái nhìn về cách mà những sản phẩm này có thể tác động đến bất bình đẳng trong hút thuốc. Chúng tôi đã tìm kiếm mười cơ sở dữ liệu điện tử vào tháng 2 năm 2017 với các thuật ngữ liên quan đến NCNP và tình trạng xã hội kinh tế. Chúng tôi đã bao gồm các nghiên cứu định tính được xuất bản từ năm 1980 và có sẵn bằng tiếng Anh. Chúng tôi đã sử dụng các hướng dẫn được điều chỉnh từ Chương trình Kỹ năng Đánh giá Phê bình để đánh giá nghiên cứu định tính. Cuộc tổng quan chỉ xác định các nghiên cứu khám phá thái độ của những người hút thuốc gặp khó khăn về kinh tế đối với NCNP nhằm giảm thiểu tác hại hoặc ngừng hút thuốc (tức là chúng tôi không xác định được bất kỳ nghiên cứu liên quan nào của các nhóm có tình trạng kinh tế xã hội thuận lợi hơn). Sử dụng phương pháp siêu khảo sát theo lập luận, chúng tôi xác định được thái độ chủ yếu là bi quan đối với NCNP nhằm giảm thiểu tác hại hoặc ngừng hút thuốc do: hoàn cảnh bất lợi về kinh tế xã hội lớn hơn; thiếu hiểu biết về lợi ích của các sản phẩm thay thế so với thuốc lá; và sự thiếu thông tin về mức độ gây hại tương đối của NCNP so với thuốc lá. Những phát hiện lạc quan, mặc dù ít hơn, lại gợi ý tiềm năng của NCNP được chấp nhận trong số những người hút thuốc đang gặp khó khăn về kinh tế xã hội. Nhìn chung, tổng quan của chúng tôi nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của việc xem xét các hoàn cảnh xã hội, văn hóa và kinh tế ảnh hưởng đến trải nghiệm về hút thuốc và việc sử dụng các sản phẩm thay thế.
Từ khóa
#sản phẩm nicotine không cháy #giảm thiểu tác hại #bất bình đẳng trong hút thuốc #nghiên cứu định tính #thái độ của người hút thuốcTài liệu tham khảo
Voigt K. Smoking norms and the regulation of E-cigarettes. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:1967–72.
Kalousova L. E-cigarettes: a harm-reduction strategy for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers? Lancet Respir. 2015;3:598–600.
Kalousova L. The real challenge is to make e-cigarettes accessible for poor smokers – Author’s reply. Lancet Respir. 2015;3:e30.
Bates C. The real challenge is to make e-cigarettes accessible for poor smokers. Lancet Respir. 2015;3:e30.
Carrieri V, Jones AM. Smoking for the poor and vaping for the rich? Distributional concerns for novel nicotine delivery systems. Econ Lett. 2016;149:71–4.
Gregoraci G, Van Lenthe FJ, Artnik B, Bopp M, Deboosere P, Kovács K, et al. Contribution of smoking to socioeconomic inequalities in mortality: a study of 14 European countries, 1990-2004. Tob Control. 2017;26:260–8.
Lucherini M, Hill S, Smith K. Potential for non-combustible nicotine products to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and synthesis of best available evidence. BMC Public Health. 2019:9.
NICE. Smoking: harm reduction, Public health guideline. 2013.
Beard E, Aveyard P, Brown J, West R. Assessing the association between the use of NRT for smoking reduction and attempts to quit smoking using propensity score matching. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;126:354–61.
McNeill A, Brose L, Calder R, Hitchman S, Hajek P, Mcrobbie H. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. Public Health England. 2015. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454516/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England.pdf.
Scotland NHS. Consensus statement on e-cigarettes; 2017.
NHS England. Using e-cigarettes to stop smoking. 2019. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/.
Cancer Research UK. Are e-cigarettes harmful? 2018. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/are-e-cigarettes-harmful.
Beard E, West R, Michie S, Brown J. Association between electronic cigarette use and changes in quit attempts, success of quit attempts, use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, and use of stop smoking services in England: time series analysis of population trends. BMJ Open. 2016;354:9.
West R, Shahab L, Brown J. Estimating the population impact of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation in England. Addiction. 2016;111:1118–9.
Bauld L, MacKintosh AM, Ford A, McNeill A. E-cigarette uptake amongst UK youth: experimentation, but little or no regular use in nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015.
McKee M, Capewell S. Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? BMJ. 2015;351:3.
Collin J. E-cigarettes, harm reduction and the tobacco industry. In: Royal College of Physicians. London: Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction; 2016. p. 135–50.
Dawkins L, Ford A, Bauld L, Balaban S, Tyler A, Cox S. A cross sectional survey of smoking characteristics and quitting behaviour from a sample of homeless adults in Great Britain. Addict Behav. 2019;95:35–40.
Lucherini M, Rooke C, Amos A. E-cigarettes, vaping and performativity in the context of tobacco denormalisation. Sociol Heal Illn. 2018;40:1037–52.
Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Fidler JA, Munafò M. Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1248:107–23.
Brown T, Platt S, Amos A. Equity impact of European individual-level smoking cessation interventions to reduce smoking in adults: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health. 2014;24:551–6.
Hill S, Amos A, Clifford D, Platt S. Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: review of the evidence. Tob Control. 2014;23:e89–97.
Paul C, Wolfenden L, Tzelepis F, Yoong S, Bowman J, Wye P, et al. Nicotine replacement therapy as a smoking cessation aid among disadvantaged smokers: what answers do we need? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2016;35:785–9.
Pokhrel P, Herzog TA, Muranaka N, Regmi S, Fagan P. Contexts of cigarette and e-cigarette use among dual users: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:859.
Jackson SE, Shahab L, Kock L, West R, Brown J. Expenditure on smoking and alternative nicotine delivery products: a population survey in England. Addiction. 2019;114:2026–36.
Graham H. When Life’s a drag: women, smoking and disadvantage. London: Department of Health; 1993.
Thirlway F. Everyday tactics in local moral worlds: E-cigarette practices in a working-class area of the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2016;170:106–13.
Bancroft A, Wiltshire S, Parry O, Amos A. “It’s like an addiction first thing... afterwards it’s like a habit”: Daily smoking behaviour among people living in areas of deprivation. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1261–7.
Lucherini M, Rooke C, Amos A. “They’re thinking, well it’s not as bad, I probably won’t get addicted to that. But it’s still got the nicotine in it, so … ”: Maturity, control and socialising: Negotiating identities in relation to smoking and vaping. A qualitative study of young adults in Scotland. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019:21:81–7.
Stead M, MacAskill S, MacKintosh AM, Reece J, Eadie D. “It’s as if you’re locked in”: qualitative explanations for area effects on smoking in disadvantaged communities. Heal Place. 2001;7:333–43.
Thompson L, Pearce J, Barnett JR. Moralising geographies: stigma, smoking islands and responsible subjects. Area. 2007;39:508–17.
Robinson BYJ, Holdsworth C. “They don’t live in my house every day”: how understanding lives can aid understandings of smoking. Contemp Drug Probl. 2013;40:47–71.
Smith KE, Anderson R. Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in Britain : a meta-ethnography. Sociol Health Illn. 2018;40:146–70.
Kotz D, West R. Explaining the social gradient in smoking cessation: It’s not in the trying, but in the succeeding. Tob Control. 2009;18:43–6.
University of York. Prospero. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed 12 June 2020.
Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O’Neill J, Waters E, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012:9:10.
Thun M, Peto R, Boreham J, Lopez AD. Stages of the cigarette epidemic on entering its second century. Tob Control. 2012;21:96–101.
Rooke C, Cloatre E, Dingwall R. The regulation of nicotine in the United Kingdom: how nicotine gum came to be a medicine, but not a drug. J Law Soc. 2012;39:39–57.
Rooke C. Harm reduction and the medicalisation of tobacco use. Sociol Heal Illn. 2013;35:361–76.
Berridge V. Histories of harm reduction: illicit drugs, tobacco, and nicotine. Subst Use Misuse. 1999;34:35–47.
CASP. CASP Checklists. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/. Accessed 12 June 2020.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc.; 1988.
Bonevski B, Bryant J, Paul C. Encouraging smoking cessation among disadvantaged groups: a qualitative study of the financial aspects of cessation. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30:411–8.
Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, O’Brien J, Oakes W. Delivering smoking cessation support to disadvantaged groups: a qualitative study of the potential of community welfare organizations. Health Educ Res. 2010;25:979–90.
Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, O’brien J, Oakes W. Developing cessation interventions for the social and community service setting: A qualitative study of barriers to quitting among disadvantaged Australian smokers. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:8.
Britten N, Pope C. Medicine taking for asthma: a worked example of meta-ethnography. In: Hannes K, Lockwood C, editors. . Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach; 2012. p. 41–57.
Rooke C, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. Smokers’ and ex-smokers’ understanding of electronic cigarettes: a qualitative study. Tob Control. 2016;25:e60–6.
Rowa-Dewar N, Rooke C, Amos A. Using e-cigarettes in the home to reduce smoking and secondhand smoke: disadvantaged parents’ accounts. Health Educ Res. 2017;32:12–21.
Atkinson O, Coleman T, McNeill A, Lewis S, Jones LL. The role of nicotine replacement therapy for temporary abstinence in the home to protect children from environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a qualitative study with disadvantaged smokers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1.
Roddy E, Antoniak M, Britton J, Molyneux A, Lewis S. Barriers and motivators to gaining access to smoking cessation services amongst deprived smokers – a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:7.
Wiltshire S, Bancroft A, Parry O, Amos A. “I came back here and started smoking again”: perceptions and experiences of quitting among disadvantaged smokers. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:292–303.
Thirlway F. Nicotine addiction as a moral problem: barriers to e-cigarette use for smoking cessation in two working-class areas in northern England. Soc Sci Med. 2019;238:7.
Thirlway F. The type of e-cigarette affects its usefulness in smoking cessation. BMJ. 2015;351:1.
Keane H, Weier M, Fraser D, Gartner C. “Anytime, anywhere”: vaping as social practice. Crit Public Health. 2017;27:465–76.
Paul CL, Ross S, Bryant J, Hill W, Bonevski B, Keevy N. The social context of smoking: a qualitative study comparing smokers of high versus low socioeconomic position. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:211.
Rowa-Dewar N, Lumsdaine C, Amos A. Protecting Children From Smoke Exposure in Disadvantaged Homes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:496–501.
Hiscock R, Arnott D, Dockrell M, Ross L, Mcewen A. Stop smoking practitioners’ understanding of e-cigarettes’ use and efficacy with particular reference to vapers’ socioeconomic status. J Smok Cessat. 2018.
Barbeau AM, Burda J, Siegel M. Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2013;8:7.
Pokhrel P, Herzog TA, Muranaka N, Fagan P. Young adult e-cigarette users’ reasons for liking and not liking e-cigarettes: a qualitative study. Psychol Health. 2015;30:1450–69.
Rowlands G, Richardson M, Protheroe J, Winkley J, Richardson M, et al. A mismatch between populationy health literacy and the complexity of health information. Br J Gen Pract. 2015:e379–86.
Sherratt FC, Newson L, Marcus MW, Field JK, Robinson J. Perceptions towards electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among stop smoking service users. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;21:421–33.
Sherratt FC, Marcus MW, Robinson J, Newson L, Field K, Sherratt FC, et al. Electronic cigarette use and risk perception in a Stop Smoking Service in England Electronic cigarette use and risk perception in a Stop Smoking Service in England; 2015. p. 6359.
Alderman J, Dollar KM, Kozlowski LT. Understanding the origins of anger, contempt, and disgust in public health policy disputes: applying moral psychology to harm reduction debates. J Public Health Policy. 2010;31:1–16.
Alexander JP, Williams P, Coleman B, Johnson SE. A qualitative examination of the ENDS experience by device type: Cigalike and tank users’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Tob Regul Sci. 2018;4:71–83.
Lucherini M, Rooke C, Amos A. “They’re thinking, well it’s not as bad, I probably won’t get addicted to that. But it’s still got the nicotine in it, so … ”: Maturity, Control, and Socializing: Negotiating Identities in Relation to Smoking and Vaping-A Qualitative Study of Young Adults i. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21:81–7.
Kirkcaldy A, Fairbrother H, Weiner K, Curtis P. Young people’s perspectives of e-cigarette use in the home. Heal Place. 2019;57:157–64.
Warner KE. How to Think—Not Feel—about Tobacco Harm Reduction. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018:21:1299–309.
Mair M, Kierans C. Critical reflections on the field of tobacco research: the role of tobacco control in defining the tobacco research agenda. Crit Public Health. 2007;17:103–12.
Lucherini M. Caught in the middle: early career researchers, public health and the emotional production of research. Crit Public Health. 2020;3:367–72.