↓ Skip to main content

Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 147)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
121 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s62116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos Farsalinos, Jacques LeHouezec

Abstract

Tobacco smoking is the largest single preventable cause of many chronic diseases and death. Effective treatments exist; however, few smokers use them and most try to quit by themselves. Most of the tobacco cigarette's toxicity is related to the combustion process. Models of harm reduction applied to tobacco suggest that switching from inhalation of combustible products to a noncombustible nicotine delivery product would likely result in a vast reduction in tobacco-related death and illness. Currently available evidence raises no doubt that electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are by far less harmful than smoking (although probably not absolutely safe) and have the potential to be the most effective tobacco harm reduction products due to their unique property of resembling smoking and providing satisfaction to the user. A lot of controversy is surrounding e-cigs and their regulation, much of which is based on the precautionary principle. Although monitoring and further research is definitely needed, the arguments used to implement severe restrictions or bans are mostly hypothetical, weakly supported by evidence, and, in some cases, derived from mispresentation or misinterpretation of the study findings. Regulators should keep in mind that the target population is smokers who want to reduce or quit their deadly tobacco consumption. To achieve this goal, smokers should be honestly informed on the relative harmfulness of the different products. E-cigs are not tobacco products and are not used as medications. For this reason, a specific regulatory scheme is needed, separate from tobacco or medicinal products regulation. Regulation should implement specific quality criteria for products, rules for the exclusion of chemicals of reasonable concern, and appropriate testing for possible contaminants. Additionally, manufacturing standards derived from the food industry should be implemented and adjusted for specific conditions related to e-cigs. Finding the appropriate balance between safety and acceptability of use by smokers will be important in achieving the maximum public health benefit. Labeling should be specified, with warnings about exposure to skin or through ingestion and discouragement of use by nonsmokers, related to the presence of nicotine. Finally, advertising and marketing should not be banned, but appropriately regulated in order to encourage use by the intended population while avoiding use by never-smokers. E-cigs should be appealing to smokers (but not to nonsmokers), while availability and pricing should be strong competitive advantages of e-cigs relative to tobacco cigarettes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 121 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 27%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Psychology 11 12%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 16 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 149. 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 04 June 2019.
All research outputs
#104,052
of 14,032,447 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#2
of 147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,682
of 248,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,032,447 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 248,854 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them