Abstract
INTRODUCTION From May 2016, the European Union introduced the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) regulations, which included restrictions to advertising and new safety and labeling standards for e-cigarette products. This represented the first supranational policy regulating e-cigarette sales and marketing. This study explores perceptions of TPD and its implementation in Wales, Scotland and England, from perspectives of stakeholders involved in tobacco and e-cigarette policy and implementation in each nation. METHODS Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with 12 stakeholders from government and third sector organizations in the UK involved in tobacco control policy-making processes, and Trading Standards Officers from 13 UK local authorities. Data were analyzed thematically and a sub-sample double-coded. RESULTS Stakeholders held varying views of e-cigarettes, recognizing potential benefits and harms of both the products and the new policy actions. Nevertheless, most perceived TPD to be a positive step in introducing regulation for e-cigarettes. Compliance was perceived as high across nations, although stakeholders highlighted product adaptations to circumvent restrictions, and absence of controls on non-nicotine products. Budgetary and staffing limitations also meant that capacity to communicate new measures, and enforce change, was limited. This led to a gap occupied by industry representatives, who played a substantial role in preparingretailers for adoption of new measures. CONCLUSIONS TPD policy roll-out was largely perceived positively and as having been effectively implemented. However, contribution of industry to communication of new measures and absence of resourcing for effective communication perhaps introduced widespread innovations within regulations. While largely viewed positively, some refinements to device regulations were proposed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-10 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Tobacco Prevention and Cessation |
| Volume | 7 |
| Early online date | 31 May 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 31 May 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England under its Public Health Research Board (Grant number 16/57/01). The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health for England. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The work was undertaken with support from the School Health Research Network (SHRN). SHRN is part of the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research funded by Health and Care Research Wales, Welsh Government (http://www.healthandcareresearch.gov. wales/).
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England under its Public Health Research Board (Grant number 16/57/01). The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health for England. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The work was undertaken with support from the School Health Research Network (SHRN). SHRN is part of the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research funded by Health and Care Research Wales, Welsh Government (http://www.healthandcareresearch.gov.wales/).
Funding Information:
The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. L. McKell, B. Hallingberg, J. Van Godwin, G. Moore, L. Bauld, O. Maynard and R. Brown report funds from NIHR Public Health Research. G. Moore also reports funds from UKCRC Consortium, Welsh Government via Health and Care Research Wales and Cardiff University, during the conduct of the study and grants from Cancer Research UK, NICE, NIHR, CRUK outside the submitted work. L. Bauld also reports grants from Medical Research Council, NIHR Public Health Research, Cancer Research UK and from UK Research Innovation, outside the submitted work. R. Brown also reports funding from Cardiff University during the conduct of the study, and grants from Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Brown R. et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Keywords
- e-cigarettes
- policy
- qualitative
- tobacco
- UK
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Epidemiology
- Health(social science)
- Health Professions (miscellaneous)
