| Title |
Harm reduction and e-cigarettes: Distorting the approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1057/s41271-016-0031-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Moore, Michael, McKee, Martin, Daube, Mike, Michael Moore, Martin McKee, Mike Daube, Moore, M |
| Abstract |
Some supporters of electronic cigarettes have argued that they should be considered a form of harm reduction, analogous to that which has been successful with narcotics. In this viewpoint, we contend that this argument is based on highly selective use of the evidence, coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of a comprehensive harm minimisation strategy. This includes not only harm reduction but also reduction in demand and supply-two elements that are explicitly rejected by many advocates of electronic cigarettes. We contend that, in the absence of all three elements, there is a danger that electronic cigarettes will delay the achievement of a tobacco-free world. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 16% |
| Australia | 4 | 6% |
| Canada | 4 | 6% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Comoros | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 29 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 53 | 85% |
| Scientists | 6 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 25% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,220,666
of 25,562,515 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#54
of 817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,892
of 315,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,562,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.