Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErku, Daniel A
dc.contributor.authorMorphett, Kylie
dc.contributor.authorSteadman, Kathryn J
dc.contributor.authorGartner, Coral E
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-21T04:45:51Z
dc.date.available2020-08-21T04:45:51Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1661-7827
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ijerph16224555
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/396646
dc.description.abstractAustralia has maintained a highly restrictive regulatory framework for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and the regulatory approach differs from most other high income countries. This paper employed a thematic analysis to assess policy consultation submissions made to a government inquiry regarding use and marketing of NVPs. We included in the analysis submissions (n = 40) made by Australian institutions that influence or contribute to health policy-making including government agencies, health bodies and charities (n = 23), and public health academics and healthcare professionals (n = 18). Submissions from commercial entities and consumers were excluded. The majority of submissions from representatives of government agencies, health bodies and charities recommended maintaining current restrictions on NVPs. Arguments against widening access to NVPs included the demand for long-term evidence on safety and efficacy of an unusually high standard. There was widespread support for restrictions on sales, advertising and promotion, with most submissions supporting similar controls as for tobacco products. In contrast, the majority of individual submissions from healthcare professionals and public health academics advocated for widening access to NVPs for smokers and emphasized the potential benefits of smokers switching to vaping and the policy incoherence of regulating less harmful nicotine products more strictly than tobacco cigarettes. Progress in resolving the policy debate concerning NVP regulation in Australia will require policy makers, clinicians and the public health community to engage in a meaningful dialogue which gives due consideration to both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMDPI AG
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom4555
dc.relation.ispartofissue22
dc.relation.ispartofjournalInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
dc.relation.ispartofvolume16
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHealth economics
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode380108
dc.titlePolicy Debates Regarding Nicotine Vaping Products in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis of Submissions to a Government Inquiry from Health and Medical Organisations
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationErku, DA; Morphett, K; Steadman, KJ; Gartner, CE, Policy Debates Regarding Nicotine Vaping Products in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis of Submissions to a Government Inquiry from Health and Medical Organisations, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (22), pp. 4555
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated2020-08-21T03:21:12Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorErku, Daniel


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record