Newsprint coverage of smoking in cars carrying children : a case study of public and scientific opinion driving the policy debate

Acknowledgements Date of Acceptance:17/10/2014 Acknowledgements: This project was funded by Cancer Research UK (MC_U130085862) and the Scottish School of Public Health Research. Cancer Research UK and the Scottish School of Public Health Research was not involved in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Shona Hilton, Karen Wood, Josh Bain and Chris Patterson are funded by the UK Medical Research Council as part of the Understandings and Uses of Public Health Research programme (MC_UU_12017/6) at the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow. We thank Alan Pollock who provided assistance with coding.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Inequalities, harm reduction and non-combustible nicotine products:A meta-ethnography of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: We searched ten electronic databases in February 2017 using terms relating to NCNP and socioeconomic status. We included qualitative studies that were published since 1980 and were available in English. We used guidelines adapted from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for appraising qualitative research. RESULTS: 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 socioeconomic 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. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review highlights the importance of considering the social, cultural and economic circumstances that influence experiences of smoking and of alternative product use

Views on and experiences of electronic cigarettes: a qualitative study of women who are pregnant or have recently given birth.

Background Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are increasingly used for reducing or stopping smoking, with some studies showing positive outcomes. However, little is known about views on ECs during pregnancy or postpartum and previous studies have nearly all been conducted in the US and have methodological limitations, such as not distinguishing between smokers and ex/non-smokers. A greater understanding of this topic will help to inform both clinicians and EC interventions. We elicited views and experiences of ECs among UK pregnant or recently pregnant women. Methods We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews, using topic guides, with pregnant or recently pregnant women, who were current or recent ex-smokers. To ensure broad views of ECs were obtained, recruitment was from several geographical locations and via various avenues of recruitment. This included stop smoking services, antenatal and health visitor clinics, a pregnancy website and an informal network. Participants were 15 pregnant and 15 postpartum women, including nine current EC users, 11 ex-users, and 10 never-users. Five women who were interviewed in pregnancy were later interviewed in postpartum to explore if their views had changed. Audio data was transcribed verbatim and framework analysis was applied. Results Five main themes emerged: motivations for use (e.g., for stopping or reducing smoking), social stigma (e.g., avoiding use in public, preferring ‘discrete’ NRT), using the EC (e.g., mostly used at home); consumer aspects (e.g., limited advice available), and harm perceptions (e.g., viewed as less harmful than smoking; concerns about safety and addiction). Conclusions ECs were viewed positively by some pregnant and postpartum women and seen as less harmful than smoking and useful as aids for reducing and stopping smoking. However, due to perceived social stigma, some women feel uncomfortable using ECs in public, especially during pregnancy, and had concerns about safety and nicotine dependence. Health professionals and designers of EC interventions need to provide women with up-to-date and consistent information and advice about safety and dependence, as well as considering the influence of social stigma

A systematic review of grandparents’ influence on grandchildren’s cancer risk factors

Many lifestyle patterns are established when children are young. Research has focused on the potential role of parents as a risk factor for non communicable disease in children, but there is limited investigation of the role of other caregivers, such as grandparents. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise evidence for any influence grandparents’ care practices may have on their grandchildren’s long term cancer risk factors. A systematic review was carried out with searches across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO) as well as searches of reference lists and citing articles, and Google Scholar. Search terms were based on six areas of risk that family care could potentially influence–weight, diet, physical activity, tobacco, alcohol and sun exposure. All study designs were included, as were studies that provided an indication of the interaction of grandparents with their grandchildren. Studies were excluded if grandparents were primary caregivers and if children had serious health conditions. Study quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence checklists. Grandparent impact was categorised as beneficial, adverse, mixed or as having no impact. Due to study heterogeneity a meta-analysis was not possible. Qualitative studies underwent a thematic synthesis of their results. Results from all included studies indicated that there was a sufficient evidence base for weight, diet, physical activity and tobacco studies to draw conclusions about grandparents’ influence. One study examined alcohol and no studies examined sun exposure. Evidence indicated that, overall, grandparents had an adverse impact on their grandchildren’s cancer risk factors. The theoretical work in the included studies was limited. Theoretically underpinned interventions designed to reduce these risk factors must consider grandparents’ role, as well as parents’, and be evaluated robustly to inform the evidence base further

Potential for non-combustible nicotine products to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and synthesis of best available evidence

While some experts have emphasised the potential for e-cigarettes to facilitate cessation among smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES), there is limited evidence of their likely equity impact. We assessed the potential for electronic cigarettes and other non-combustible nicotine-containing products (NCNPs) to reduce inequalities in smoking by systematically reviewing evidence on their use by SES in countries at stage IV of the cigarette epidemic

"Quite an awkward situation to be in":perceptions of patients, carers and health and social care professionals of the supportive cancer care in British military personnel stationed in Germany

Goals of work: This paper reports findings from a study which identified the nature and volume of supportive care received by British military services personnel and their dependents who experience cancer and are based in Germany. The objectives were to (1) identify any gaps in the provision of supportive care, (2) determine the potential for additional supportive care services (local or remote), and (3) identify any educational or development issues for DMWS personnel. Materials and methods: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with people with cancer (n?=?7), informal carers (n?=?6), British health care professionals employed by British Forces in Germany (n?=?8), German health care professionals (n?=?3), senior military personnel (n?=?6) and army support personnel (n?=?5). Analysis of the data was thematic and focused on accounts of care related to core issue identified in the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines (24). Main results: The paper explores the difficulties which British military personnel experience in their cancer care. The shortfalls in best practice are discussed in the framework of NICE guidelines focusing on communication, information, psychosocial care and coordination of care/inter-agency working. Significant gaps in the supportive care service provision are apparent. Conclusions: The limited assessment and discussion of patients' supportive care needs suggests key areas for service improvement for providers both within the British Military in Germany, and in the services provided by German organisations. These findings highlight issues that should be considered by those providing supportive care for marginalised patient groups, such as patients and carers from different cultures