See the published version of this article at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Mark Lucherini
Keele University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1494-7740
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
We sought to review qualitative evidence on how smokers in different socioeconomic groups engage with non-combustible nicotine products (NCNP), including electronic cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies, in order to provide insight into how these products might impact on smoking inequalities. The review only identified studies exploring the attitudes of socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers towards NCNP for harm reduction or cessation purposes (i.e. we did not identify any relevant studies of more advantaged socioeconomic groups). Using a lines-of-argument meta-ethnographic approach, we identified a predominantly pessimistic attitude to NCNP for harm reduction or cessation of smoking due to: wider circumstances of socio-economic disadvantage; lack of a perceived advantage of alternative products over smoking; and a perceived lack of information about relative harms of NCNP compared to smoking. Optimistic findings, although fewer, suggested the potential of NCNP being taken up among smokers experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Overall, our review highlights the importance of considering the social, cultural and economic circumstances that influence experiences of smoking and of alternative product use.
Keywords
E-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, nicotine replacement therapy, inequalities, qualitative research; socioeconomic status
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 2
Posted 20 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 29 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 05 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 28 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 27 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 24 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Public Health. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Mark Lucherini
Keele University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1494-7740
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 2
Posted 20 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 29 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 05 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 28 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 27 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 24 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
We sought to review qualitative evidence on how smokers in different socioeconomic groups engage with non-combustible nicotine products (NCNP), including electronic cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies, in order to provide insight into how these products might impact on smoking inequalities. The review only identified studies exploring the attitudes of socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers towards NCNP for harm reduction or cessation purposes (i.e. we did not identify any relevant studies of more advantaged socioeconomic groups). Using a lines-of-argument meta-ethnographic approach, we identified a predominantly pessimistic attitude to NCNP for harm reduction or cessation of smoking due to: wider circumstances of socio-economic disadvantage; lack of a perceived advantage of alternative products over smoking; and a perceived lack of information about relative harms of NCNP compared to smoking. Optimistic findings, although fewer, suggested the potential of NCNP being taken up among smokers experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Overall, our review highlights the importance of considering the social, cultural and economic circumstances that influence experiences of smoking and of alternative product use.
Figure 1
Loading...