Support for e-cigarette policies among smokers in seven European countries: longitudinal findings from the 2016–18 EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2016 European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) required Member States (MS) to implement new regulations for electronic cigarettes (ECs). We conducted a longitudinal study to assess changes over 2 years in smokers' support for EC policies and identify predictors of support in seven European countries after TPD implementation. METHODS: Prospective cohort surveys were conducted among adult smokers in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain and England in 2016 (n = 9547; just after TPD) and 2018 (n = 10 287; 2 years after TPD). Multivariable logistic regression models employing generalized estimating equations assessed changes in support for four EC policies, and tested for country differences and strength of key predictors of support. RESULTS: Banning EC use in smoke-free places was supported by 53.1% in 2016 and 54.6% in 2018 with a significant increase in Greece (51.7-66.0%) and a decrease in Spain (60.1-48.6%). Restricting EC/e-liquid nicotine content was supported by 52.2 and 47.4% in 2016 and 2018, respectively, with a significant decrease in England (54.2-46.5%) and Romania (52.5-41.0%). An EC promotion ban was supported by 41.1 and 40.2%. A flavour ban was supported by 33.3% and 32.3% with a significant increase in Hungary (34.3-43.3%). Support was generally higher in Poland, Hungary and Greece vs. England. Support was lower among dual and EC-only users, and low-income smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers in all countries strongly supported banning EC use in smoke-free places and restricting nicotine content after TPD implementation, with no clear trends for changes in policy support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".