1. 1 dah00069
Do e-cigarettes have the potential to make a significant contribution to a
reduction in smoking rates in the UK? What are the barriers and facilitators?
Student: dah00069
Student Number: 2433309
Word count excluding references: 3130

2. 2 dah00069
As an innovative form of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS), encouraging the
uptake of e-cigarettes among more deprived communities could offer a way to reduce
the devastating disease and economic burden of tobacco across social gradients.1 As
well as policy interventions to prevent the uptake of smoking, sustained reductions in
smoking rates can only be achieved by limiting initial experimentation with tobacco
and supporting smokers to quit. Yet beyond national-level population data on the use
of e-cigarettes as a form of nicotine replacement therapy, little is known about their
relationship with deprivation in the UK. This essay explores the current inequities
literature to understand what barriers and facilitators are created by e-cigarettes
among deprived groups. As it is difficult to account for deprivation in research, often
requiring a proxy of low educational or socioeconomic status, this essay defines
deprivation as individuals meeting any criteria within the indices for multiple
deprivation used in England2 and Scotland3. These indices cover inequities in income,
employment, health, education, housing, crime, living environment and geographic
access to services. To this end, it does not look explicitly at the relative effectiveness
of e-cigarettes in relation to other NRT4 5, the emergence ‘heat-not-burn’ products, or
the harm-reduction narrative of tobacco industry actors in the e-cigarette debate6 7 8:
these are important questions that influence smoking cessation, but are either a
different form of ENDS or being explored in the literature elsewhere.
Using a frame of proportionate universalism, reducing smoking rates in the UK
to achieve an ‘end-game’ ambition and improve health outcomes will increasingly
require targeted interventions for vulnerable groups alongside population level
policies. And with smoking rates remaining stubbornly high among routine and manual
occupations in Great Britain9 10, a failure to support these smokers to quit has resulted
in the largest cause of social inequities in the UK, responsible for up to 11,000 extra

3. 3 dah00069
preventable lung cancer deaths per year in England.11 12 With neighbourhood
deprivation associated with reduced willingness to use, complete and successfully quit
through a Stop Smoking Service in England, deprived groups may not be being
adequately targeted with existing cessation strategies.13 14 And given the growth and
sustained popularity of e-cigarettes, the declining but high prevalence of cigarette and
tobacco smokers in the UK15, and the prevailing evidence that e-cigarettes are less
harmful than smoking16 17 18, there is an opportunity to encourage deprived groups,
where smoking rates remain stubbornly high, to reduce cigarette smoking or make a
quit attempt with an e-cigarette. This essay emphasises the drawbacks in the
research, societal and political environments preventing this benefit – and the potential
for e-cigarettes in a harm-reduction strategy19 – from being realised, and proposes
opportunities to facilitate their use.
The most recent data for Great Britain demonstrates that 36% of current
smokers – 3.46 million people – have never used an e-cigarette.20 With the burden of
smoking falling mainly on the most disadvantaged, communicating the role of e-
cigarettes in a harm reduction approach could offer valuable opportunities for smoking
cessation. Yet, despite the current evidence showing e-cigarettes are far safer than
smoking, concerns about the perceived harms of e-cigarettes are a clear barrier to
uptake. At just 15%, Great Britain is experiencing the lowest level of public belief that
electronic cigarettes are a lot less harmful than smoking since data collection started.21
Evidence shows there is considerable uncertainty among participants about the
constituents, safety and harms of e-cigarettes among Scottish22 and British23 smokers
and ex-smokers. Despite advice from Public Health England (PHE) to encourage Stop
Smoking Services (SSS) to be supportive of, and provide advice on e-cigarettes24,
these concerns are reflected by SSS service staff. Here, staff have low levels of

4. 4 dah00069
positive opinions about e-cigarettes and concerns they are detracting from service
footfall with only 2% of clients using e-cigarettes to quit25 26, and these concerns are
reflected in international research with quit-line staff.27 These concerns are shared by
service users, where evidence in England has found uncertainty and
misunderstanding around information on e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, particularly
among never users.28 29 Despite guidance on the benefits of services that support e-
cigarettes to promote cessation, a lack of compliance is problematic. And while only
the Scottish analysis of multiple deprivation factors access to services as an indicator,
the literature showing barriers to harm reduction for deprived groups also
demonstrates a need to consider geographic access to service provision when
discussing health deprivations in England. Overcoming this barrier requires a growth
in research about best practise of including e-cigarettes in cessation services. This
can inform national guidance and explore any unintended consequences specific to
deprived groups.
In addition, studies exploring the carcinogenic compounds of e-cigarette
vapour30 may dissuade individuals from uptake. But with smokers likely to have been
exposed to household, parental or environmental smoking cues as a trigger for
uptake31 32, reinforcing e-cigarette smoking behaviours could help to reduce smoking
rates by removing such cues. As well as replacing traditional smoking cues with e-
cigarette cues, re-inforcing negative smoking cues such as embarrassment or the cost
of cigarettes could also encourage deprived smokers to quit.33 To translate these cues
into meaningful quit attempts, and overcome concerns about misinformation over
relative health harms as a barrier to uptake, three approaches are required. Firstly,
building on Kozlowski’s work on updating the tobacco control narrative34,
communicating the extreme lethality of tobacco smoke is needed to educate users on

5. 5 dah00069
the relative safety and lower perceived harms of e-cigarette vapour to reassure
smokers. 35 36 Secondly, understanding that every contact counts is vital, particularly
given more deprived smokers more reliably seek support from pharmacies than
SSS’s.37 This requires structured information that facilitates belief in the safety and
cessation potential of e-cigarettes, and promotes self-efficacy to switch, delivered by
smokers and health professionals alike as a valuable opportunity to cessation. And
finally, understanding which influencers best promote uptake of e-cigarettes as a
cessation aid in the UK is a non-existent area of research. Exploring these approaches
is vital to establish the touchpoints and tailored messages that invoke a quit attempt
using an e-cigarette among more deprived groups.
While 36% of smokers in Great Britain have never used an e-cigarette, there is
also no comprehensive data on the behaviours of the 64% who have. Not capturing
this data is a barrier for deprived groups to use e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, by
failing to understand variations in consumption patterns, teachable moments to
promote a quit attempt, or tracking motivations to quit. Similarly, despite research
identifying a need to understand variations in the use and awareness of e-cigarettes
by deprivation and lifestyle status38 39 40 only one statistical bulletin – the Opinions and
Lifestyle Survey41 – explores both tobacco and e-cigarette smoking behaviours. This
has made it difficult to understand the relationship between frequency of e-cigarette
use and socioeconomic status. Such research in Britain has typically been restricted
to adolescents. With only one study in Britain indicating higher adult use with increased
socio-economic status42 and only one more identified in press43, there is a clear need
for a British general population study and frequent cross-sectional time-series data to
establish sustained relationships with deprivation. This lack of understanding is also
reinforced by conflicting American evidence.44 45 One problem here may be that

6. 6 dah00069
national surveys fail to link demographic variables like age, gender, education, race
ethnicity and smoking status to indices of multiple deprivation.46 47 There are also no
frequent longitudinal data on the use of e-cigarettes to reduce smoking rates with
important cohorts more at risk of deprivation, such as black and minority ethnic
(BAME) groups or those not in education, employment or training (NEET). Similarly,
this essay identified no literature exploring the benefits of e-cigarettes of reducing
smoking rates by LGBT status, risky sexual behaviour, disposable income or those
with existing morbidities. Specific methodological improvements to be addressed are
a standardised questionnaire to understand the benefits of e-cigarettes as a cessation
aid among deprived groups, and controlling for social desirability in self-reported
behaviours.48 With most research with deprived groups done through focus groups or
cross-sectional surveys, these improvements are necessary. This is particularly
apparent when data limitations are already impacting on research, with low statistical
power cited as a barrier to assess the association between e-cigarette availability and
area of deprivation in the UK.49 Addressing these methodological issues can remove
bias and establish an overdue set of standards for research that understand the
benefits of targeted cessation interventions using an e-cigarette.
As well as inadequacies in the evidence base, another barrier to encouraging
deprived smokers to use e-cigarettes and reducing smoking rates is the problematic
communication of the existing evidence base. Lower socioeconomic groups and
smokers, who typically have a lower health literacy50 51, may require lay-friendly and
concise information to promote a quit attempt. International evidence with
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities has suggested positively perceptions
of e-cigarette safety and effectiveness are associated with trying e-cigarettes and
higher levels of motivation to quit. 52 Accurately representing the e-cigarette evidence

7. 7 dah00069
base and addressing concerns of social stigma from inaccurate coverage may provide
an environmental cue for smoking cessation. 53 But this accuracy requires overcoming
barriers. Firstly, content analyses of UK newspapers shows a frequent disagreement
over the use of e-cigarettes in public, fuelled by concerns over renormalizing or vapour
harms, confusion among the media itself and an unclear division between paid
advertising and news reports54 55. This confusion is furthered by sensationalist
misreporting of studies, such as presenting in vitro research on toxicity of propylene
glycol56 57 or acetaldehyde58 as causing real-world harms. Similarly, statistical
misreporting by using relative rather than absolute risks can infer disproportionately
high uptake in children,59 while Public Health England’s widely-publicised ‘95% safer’
statistic has also been criticised as implying absolute health harms rather than
explaining it reflects social and environmental considerations60. Finally, rare events
such as explosions61 or child consumption62 are highly publicised and could dissuade
from someone making a quit attempt, despite these also being problems for tobacco.
63
This lack of clarity has failed individuals seeking information about e-cigarettes.
But it also exists in academic and regulatory discourse, with high-profile disagreement
between restrictive positions adopted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and
a Cochrane Review finding potential for e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. 64 This
disagreement predicates inconsistencies in the regulatory context, with restrictive
proposals on outdoor vaping in the Public Health (Wales) Bill65 directly contradicting
the evidence base. With research demonstrating UK adolescents in deprived
communities support sensible e-cigarette regulation in pursuit of positive health
outcomes66, there is a scope for deprived groups to overcome this barrier by taking an
increased role influencing policy decisions. In addition, supportive e-cigarette policies

8. 8 dah00069
can increase awareness of the relative health harms of e-cigarettes compared to
tobacco67, and this impact should be better considered in public policy debates.
Embracing the role of policy to increase health awareness also offers an opportunity
to effectively communicate changes to e-cigarette marketing through the EU Tobacco
Products Directive, and support a narrative which promotes smoking cessation but not
glamorising products to children. Particularly for those of low health literacy, reframing
social attitudes towards e-cigarettes as a positive tool for harm reduction will be a vital
precursor to reduce smoking rates. To make e-cigarette a more appealing options for
deprived smokers to quit, sustained tobacco control policy activity such as the tobacco
duty escalator and comprehensive efforts to tackle the illicit trade can also reduce
access to ultra-low price forms of tobacco and limit environmental smoking cues. This
mitigates the price-sensitivity of more deprived groups to access other forms of
cheaper tobacco, and maintains a cost incentive for uptake.
This essay notes a conceptual barrier that as well improving as the quality of
information, how deprived groups disseminate and engage with cessation literature is
an important and under-explored area of research. Knowledge and engagement with
information about e-cigarettes is likely to differ by socioeconomic status, with
international research suggesting less deprived users search for information about e-
cigarettes, while those of lower educational status are more likely to share or promote
content.68 With smoking behaviours typically developed in adolescence, and heavy
users of social networking sites more likely to smoke, this is a window of opportunity
to prevent initial experimentation that could predicate long-term smoking behaviours.69
Defining these behaviours and key influencers with a UK cohort can inform a strategy
for message dissemination. Furthermore, communicating the health risks of smoking
as gain-framed or loss-framed will illicit different behavioural responses, with an

9. 9 dah00069
international cohort expressing loss-framed messages about the relative harms of
tobacco, particularly among lifetime e-cigarette users and women.70 Furthermore,
considering preliminary evidence that YouTube is a popular avenue to promote the
harm reduction benefits of e-cigarettes71, the media consumption patterns of lower
socio-economic status groups favouring smartphone and video platforms72, pervasive
e-cigarette advertising and opportunities for data mining across Twitter73 and Reddit74,
and the intention of deprived e-cigarette users to promote content, there is a clear and
untapped opportunity to target cessation information using an e-cigarette to deprived
groups. These remain opportunities that extend beyond the traditional clinical framing,
and are under-explored in research.
A final barrier relates to economic concerns about the prohibitive start-up costs
of e-cigarettes. One hypothesis is more deprived groups can only afford poorer-quality
or earlier generation e-cigarettes, with cost associated as an issue for unemployed
young adults in Scotland.75 However, there is no evidence monitoring how deprivation
status influences purchase behaviours of different generations, the impact of free
promotions on intentions to quit, or evidence to support a start-up cost barrier. Though
a review of novel nicotine replacement therapy products has suggested new and
sophistically products are unlikely to be substantially cheaper than existing NRT76,
increased demand establishes the innovation, accessibility and relative affordability of
e-cigarettes. International research also suggests communicating this innovation
favourably could contribute to wider uptake.77 Communicating the financial benefits of
using an e-cigarette also present a ‘gain-framed’ prevention message. While the
particular appeal of this message has only been associated by age and smoking status
rather than deprivation status78, it can create a positive cue for price-sensitive deprived
smokers to quit. With 9% of e-cigarette users in Great Britain citing their main reason

10. 10 dah00069
for vaping is the cost benefit, this question of cost is an opportunity to explore.79
But with the same survey showing 53% of current e-cigarettes users giving their
main reason to help quit smoking, there remains vast untapped potential to increase
smoking cessation. Despite a relatively small scope of 13 completed trials and only
two that addressed e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, a Cochrane Review demonstrates
there is evidence that using an e-cigarette with nicotine could help increase long-term
cessation chances compared to no nicotine.80 Preliminary international evidence
appears that deprived communities, from the homeless81 to illicit drug users82 and
prisoners83, are interested in the possibility of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. While
UK evidence with priority groups is almost non-existent, and international evidence
has inferred a limited effectiveness of NRT-only interventions among indigenous
communities84, the prevalent evidence suggests e-cigarettes can offer an opportunity
to reduce smoking rates among deprived groups in the UK. They also offer the specific
benefit of improved health outcomes beyond non-communicable diseases, for
conditions where deprived groups are likely to be more at risk. This includes avoiding
negative changes in mental health85 86, understanding the harms of exposure to
second-hand tobacco smoke87, improved psychological wellbeing to tobacco cues88,
and promoting behaviour change through tackling poor self-efficacy89. Evidence is
also appeasing concerns that e-cigarette use re-normalises the behaviour of smoking,
with no evidence supporting it found in a comprehensive review.90 E-cigarette use
among deprived adolescents mirrors the trend for teenagers’ tobacco smoking in
England91, with sustained low levels of experimentation and regular use confined to
those who also smoke tobacco.92 Finally, to overcome lacking data on the economic
benefits of e-cigarettes discussed above, new models are being developed to better
assess their costs, benefits and public health impacts, though without methodological

11. 11 dah00069
consistency.93 94
Finally, there are two research questions of particular interest that could
become facilitators for deprive groups to use e-cigarettes, and reduce smoking rates,
in the future. Firstly, UK data has suggested that daily e-cigarette use is associated
with reduced number of cigarettes smoked and increased cessation attempts, but not
with increased permanent cessation.95 While nicotine replacement products can be
used in complement to nicotine absorption from smoking96 it remains unclear whether
‘dual use’ improves cessation outcomes. Furthermore, this relationship is particularly
unclear for deprived groups, with conflicting international evidence on who dual users
are, either being of lower educational attainment, unemployed or out of work97, or
newer research with a larger sample suggesting dual users are more educated and
motivated to quit.98 Establishing this relationship could mean that even if the decline
in smoking rates were to stall, the number of cigarettes consumed by each smoker
can be reduced. Secondly, building on comments about smoking cues, the relationship
between smokers and vapers different generations of e-cigarettes with developing an
‘e-cigarette identity’ remains largely undefined. Understanding this identity can help
contextualise specific barriers or challenges for reducing smoking prevalence. It could
also facilitate improved message communication by understanding stigmas about
using an e-cigarette, and work to prevent e-cigarette users feeling disenfranchised
from influencing the policy context. Preliminary research suggests e-cigarettes may
be viewed favourably by smokers as a cessation aid, but that it threatens to undermine
their profile as a smoker.99
In short, this essay concludes e-cigarettes can offer an opportunity to reduce
smoking rates among deprived groups. However, doing so requires significant
barriers in the research, societal and political environments to be overcome. Personal

12. 12 dah00069
barriers to ensure perceptions of individual harm are diminished through clear and
coherent communication of appropriately targeted information across peer and clinical
influencers. This communications is reliant on both the quality of information, but
establishing the most effective key influencers and communication strategies to appeal
to the health literacy of deprived smokers, which are likely to differ from less deprived
subsets of the population. Promoting self-efficacy for deprived groups to use e-
cigarettes and reduce smoking rates is vital, and can also be achieved by a supportive
policy environment for tobacco control to a) discourage tobacco consumption and b)
encourage the transition from smoking to e-cigarettes, and c) ensure smoking
cessation services are adequately tailored to respond to the needs of e-cigarette
users. Ultimately, this environment will only be achieved with a strong evidence base,
and significant reductions in smoking rates can only be evaluated through
comprehensive and sustained data collection. Underpinning all other factors is a need
for methodological consensus about how data on the relationship between deprivation
and e-cigarette use is collected and reported, and specific barriers in the literature that
must be overcome. To facilitate the vast opportunities to rid the most deprived up and
down the UK from the lethal grip of tobacco, this should be sought with urgency.

13. 13 dah00069
REFERENCES
1 Huang J et al. Electronic cigarettes among priority populations: role of smoking
cessation and tobacco control policies. American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
2016;50(2):199-209. (website)
2 Department of Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of
Deprivation 2010. (website)
3 The Scottish Government. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012. (Available
from website)
4 Beard E et al. Has growth in electronic cigarette use by smokers been responsible
for the decline in use of licensed nicotine products? Findings from repeat cross-
sectional surveys. Thorax. 2015;70(10):974-8. (website)
5 Nelson V et al. Comparison of the characteristics of long-term users of electronic
cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy: a cross-sectional survey of English
ex-smokers and current smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2015;153(1):300-
305. (website)
6 McCambridge J. Ethical issues raised by tobacco industry-linked research in an era
of research. Addiction. 2016;111(8):1334-5. (website)
7 Branston J and Sweanor, D. Big tobacco, e-cigarettes and a road to the smoking
endgame. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2016;29:14-18. (website)
8 Shaw D et al. Should academic journals publish e-cigarette research linked to
tobacco companies? Addiction. 2016;111(8):1328-32. (website)
9 Public Health England. Local Tobacco Control Profiles for England: August 2016
data update. (Available from website)
10 Office of National Statistics. Adult smoking habits in Great Britain, 2013. (website)
11 Jha P, Peto R, Zatonski W et al. Social inequalities in male mortality, and in male
mortality from smoking: indirect estimation from national death rates in England and
Wales, Poland, and North America. Lancet. 2006;368:367–70.
12 National Cancer Intelligence Network and Cancer Research UK. ‘Cancer by
deprivation in England 1996-2011’. (website)
13 Brose L and McEwen A. Neighbourhood Deprivation and Outcomes of Stop
Smoking Support – An Observational Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0148194.
(website)
14 Bauld L et al. The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic
review. Journal of Public Health. 2010;32(1):71-82. (website)
15 Office of National Statistics. Adult smoking habits in Great Britain: 2014. (website)
16 Nutt D et al. E-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking. The Lancet.
2016;387(10024): 1160-1162. (website)
17 Teesdale J et al. Cigarette smoke but not electronic cigarette aerosol activates a
stress response in human coronary artery endothelial cells in culture. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence. 2016;163:256-260. (website)
18 Hajek P et al. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on
smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction. 2014;109(11):1801-1810.
(website)
19 Kalousova L. E-cigarettes: a harm reduction strategy for socioeconomically
disadvantaged smokers. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2015;3(8): 598-600.
(website)
20 ONS, ibid.

14. 14 dah00069
21 Action on Smoking and Health. Use of electronic cigarettes (vapourisers) among
adults in Great Britain. 2016. (pdf)
22 Rooke C, Cunningham-Burley S, and Amos A. Smokers’ and ex-smokers’
understanding of electronic cigarettes: a qualitative study. Tobacco Control.
2016;25(e1): e60-e66. (website)
23 Brose L et al. Perceived relative harm of electronic cigarettes over time and impact
on subsequent use. A survey with 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence. 2015;157(1):106-111. (website)
24 Torjesen I. Stop smoking services must become “e-cigarette” friendly, says Public
Health England. BMJ. 2015;351:h4518. (website)
25 Hiscock R et al. Views from the Coalface: what do English Stop Smoking Service
personnel think about e-cigarettes? International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health. 2015;12(12):16157-16167. (website)
26 Beard E et al. How are the English Stop Smoking Services responding to growth in
use of electronic cigarettes? Patient Education and Counseling. 2014;94(2):276-281.
(website)
27 Cummins S et al. Knowledge and beliefs about electronic cigarettes among
quitline cessation staff. Addictive Behaviors. 2016;60:78-83. (website)
28 Sherratt F et al. Perceptions towards electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation
among Stop Smoking Service users. British Journal of Health Psychology.
2016;21(2): 421-433. (website)
29 Sherratt F, Newson L, and Field J. Electronic cigarettes: a survey of perceived
patient use and attitudes among members of the British thoracic oncology group.
Respiratory Research. 2016;17(1):55. (website)
30 Sleiman M et al. Emissions from electronic cigarettes: key parameters affecting
the release of harmful chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology.
2016;10.1021/acs.est.6b01741 (website)
31 Leonardi-Bee J, Jere M, and Britton J. Exposure to parental and sibling smoking
and the risk of smoking uptake in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2011;66:847–55.
32 US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among
youth and young adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta GA: US Dept of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking
and Health. 2012. (website)
33 Hughes R et al. Do environmental cues prompt attempts to stop smoking? A
prospective natural history study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2015;154:146-151.
(website)
34 Kozlowski L and Abrams D. Obsolete tobacco control themes can be hazardous to
public health: the need for updating views on absolute product risks and harm
reduction. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:432. (website)
35 Farsalinos K and Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic
cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Therapeutic
Advances in Drug Safety. 2014;5(2): 67-86. (website)
36 Tan A et al. Is exposure to e-cigarette communication associated with perceived
harms of e-cigarette secondhand vapour? Results from a national survey of US
adults. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e007134. (website)
37 Ibid, Bauld L et al.
38 Ibid, Huang J et al.

15. 15 dah00069
39 Hughes K et al. Associations between e-cigarette access and smoking and
drinking behaviours in teenagers. BMC Public Health. 2015;31(15): 244. (website)
40 Rigotti N et al. Increasing prevalence of electronic cigarette use among smokers
hospitalized in 5 US cities, 2010-2013. Nicotine & Tobacco Research.
2015;17(2):236-44. (website)
41 Ibid, ONS.
42 Brown J et al. Prevalence and characteristics of e-cigarette users in Great Britain:
findings from a general population survey of smokers. Addictive Behaviours.
2014;39(6):1120-25. (website)
43 Hajek P. Can electronic cigarettes help disadvantages smokers who struggle to
quit’. In Press. Abstract obtained via personal correspondence with the UK E-
Cigarette Research Forum.
44 Ibid, Huang J et al.
45 Pearson J et al. E-cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in US adults.
American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102(9): 1758-66. (website)
46 Biener L and Hargreaves J. A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette use among
a population-based sample of adult smokers: association with smoking cessation
and motivation to quit. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2015;17(2): 127-133.
(website)
47 Giovenco D, Lewis M, and Delnevo C. Factors associated with e-cigarette use: a
national population survey of current and former smokers. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 2014;47(4):476-480. (website)
48 Bennett, K., and Blake, L. Self-reporting and social desirability: the implications for
e-cigarette data collection. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2016;107(1):e136.
(website)
49 Hsu R et al. An observational study of retail availability and in-store marketing of e-
cigarettes in London: potential to undermine recent tobacco control gains? BMJ
Open. 2013; 3(12):e004085. (pdf)
50 Public Health England and UCL Institute of Health Equity. Local action on health
inequalities: improving health literacy to reduce health inequalities. 2015. (pdf)
51 Martin L et al. Which literacy skills are associated with smoking? Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health. 2012;66(2):189-192. (website)
52 Twyman L et al. Electronic cigarettes: awareness, recent use and attitudes within
a sample of socioeconomically disadvantages Australian smokers. Nicotine and
Tobacco Research. 2016;18(5):670-677. (website)
53 Case K et al. Formative research to identify perceptions of e-cigarettes in college
students: implications for future health communication campaigns. Journal of
American College Health. 2016;64(5): 380-9. (website)
54 Patterson C, Hilton S, and Weishaar, H. Who thinks about e-cigarette regulation?
A content analysis of UK newspapers. Addiction. 2016;111(7): 1267-74. (website)
55 Cancer Research UK. The marketing of electronic cigarettes in the UK. A report by
Marisa de Andrade, Gerard Hastings, Kathryn Angus, Diane Dixon and Richard
Purves. 2013. (website)
56 Bauld L in The Guardian. No, there’s still no evidence e-cigarettes are as harmful
as smoking. 2015. (website)
57 Morshed M, Jain S, and McMartin K. Acute toxicity of propylene glycol: an
assessment using cultured proximal tubule cells of human origin. Fundemental and
Applied Toxicology. 1994;23(1): 38-43. (website)
58 Farsalinos K, Voudris V, and Poulas K. E-cigarettes generate high levels of
aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions. Addiction. 2015;110(8):1352-56. (website)

16. 16 dah00069
59 Wise J. Children are three times as likely to try e-cigarettes as tobacco products,
study finds. BMJ. 2014;349:g7508. (website)
60 The Lancet. E-cigarettes: Public Health England’s evidence-based confusion.
2015;386(9996): 829. (website)
61 BBC News. E-cigarette charger safety alert issued after spate of fires. 2015.
(website)
62 Daily Mail. Seven children a day shallow liquid nicotine from e-cigarette refills,
prompting doctors to call for greater regulation. 2014. (website)
63
GOV.UK. Smoking time bomb: cigarettes the most deadly cause of house fire
fatalities. 2011. (website)
64 Fairchild A and Bayer R. Smoke and fire over e-cigarettes. Science.
2014;347(6620): 375-376. (pdf)
65 National Assembly for Wales. Public Health (Wales) Bill. 2016 (website)
66 Weishaar H, Trevisan F, and Hilton S. ‘Maybe they should regulate them quite
strictly until they know the true dangers’: a focus group study exploring UK
adolescents’ views on e-cigarette regulation. Addiction. 2016;doi:
10.1111/add.13377. (website).
67 Yong H et al. Prevalence and correlates of the belief that electronic cigarettes are
a lot less harmful than convention cigarettes under the different regulatory
environments of Australia and the United Kingdom. Nicotine & Tobacco Research.
2016;doi: 10.1093/ntr.ntw137. (website)
68 Emery S et al. Wanna know about vaping? Patterns of message exposure,
seeking and sharing information about e-cigarettes across media platforms. Tobacco
Control. 2014;23: iii17-iii25. (website)
69 Seo, DC and Huang Y. Systematic review of social network analysis in adolescent
cigarette smoking behavior. Journal of School Health. 2012;82(1):21-27. (website)
70 Kong G et al. Preference for gain- or loss-framed electronic cigarette prevention
messages. Addictive Behaviours. 2016;62:108-113. (website)
71 Luo C et al. Portrayal of electronic cigarettes on YouTube. BMC Public Health.
2014;14:1028. (pdf)
72 Ofcom. Adults’ media use and attitudes. 2016. (pdf)
73 Clark M et al. Vaporous marketing: uncovering pervasive electronic cigarette
advertisements on Twitter. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0157304. (website)
74 Wang L et al. An examination of electronic cigarette content on social media:
analysis of e-cigarette flavor content on Reddit. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015;12(11):14916-14935. (website)
75 The Scottish Government. Young adults and e-cigarettes: a qualitative exploration
of awareness, experience and attitudes. 2016. (pdf)
76 Shahab L, Brose L, and West R. Novel delivery systems for nicotine replacement
therapy as an aid to smoking cessation and for harm reduction: rationale, and
evidence for advantages over existing systems. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(12): 1007-19.
(website)
77 Trumbo C and Harper R. Perceived characteristics of e-cigarettes as an innovation
by young adults. Health Behaviour and Policy Review. 2015;2(2):154-162. (website)
78 Ibid, Kong G et al.
79 Ibid, ONS.
80 McRobbie H et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;12. (pdf)

17. 17 dah00069
81 Vijayaraghavan M, Hurst S, and Pierce J. A qualitative examination of smoke-free
policies and electronic cigarettes among sheltered homeless adults. American
Journal of Health Promotion. 2015;in press. (website)
82 Sutherland R et al. Tobacco and e-cigarette use amongst illicit drug users in
Australia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2016;1(159):35-41. (website)
83 Curry L et al. E-cigarettes made especially for inmates. Tobacco Control.
2014;23(e2):e87-88. (website)
84 Paul C et al. Nicotine replacement therapy as a smoking cessation aid among
disadvantaged smokers: what answers do we need? Drug and Alcohol Review.
2015;doi: 10.1111/dar.12362. (pdf)
85 Taylor G et al. Does smoking worsen mental health? A comparison of two
observational approaches. BMJ Open. 2015;15(5):e007812. (website)
86 Caponnetto P et al. Impact of an electronic cigarette on smoking reduction and
cessation in schizophrenic smokers: a prospective 12-month pilot study. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(2): 446-461.
(website)
87 Macdonald M et al. Clearing the air: protocol for a systematic meta-narrative
review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices. Systematic
Reviews. 2016;5(1):85. (website)
88 Hiscock R et al. Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences. 2012;1248: 107-123. (website)
89 Vasiljevic M et al. Is the intention-behaviour gap greater amongst the most
deprived? A meta-analysis of five studies on physical activity, diet and medication
adherence in smoking cessation. British Journal of Health Psychology.
2016;21(1):11-30 (website)
90 Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction.
2016;London: RCP. (website)
91 The Guardian. E-cigarette use by 15-year-olds higher in more deprived parts of
England. 2016. (website)
92 Ford A et al. Adolescents’ responses to the promotion and flavouring of e-
cigarettes. International Journal of Public Health. 2016;61(2): 215-224. (website)
93 Levy D et al. A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes
and other vaporised nicotine products. Addiction. 2016;early view.
94 Kalkhoran S and Glantz S. Modeling the health effects of expanding e-cigarette
sales in the United States and United Kingdom: a Monte Carlo analysis. JAMA
Internal Medicine. 2015;175(10):1671-1680. (website)
95 Brose L et al. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with
smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A
survey with a 1-year follow up. Addiction. 2015;110(7): 1160-8. (website)
96 Shahab L, Brose L, and West R. Novel delivery systems for nicotine replacement
therapy as an aid to smoking cessation and for harm reduction: rationale, and
evidence for advantages over existing systems. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(12):1007-19.
(website)
97 Richardson A et al. Primary and dual users of cigars and cigarettes: profiles,
tobacco use patterns and relevance to policy. Nicotine & Tobacco Research.
2012;14(8): 927-932. (website)
98 Nayak P et al. Electronic nicotine delivery system dual use and intention to quit
smoking: will the socioeconomic gap in smoking get greater? Addictive Behaviours.
2016;61: 112-116. (website)

18. 18 dah00069
99 Lucherini M, Amos A, and Rooke C. Young adults’ perceptions of e-cigarettes: a
qualitative study. 2016;in press (website)