Electronic cigarette advertising impacts adversely on smoking behaviour within a London student cohort:a cross-sectional structured survey

Introduction In contrast to tobacco smoking, electronic cigarette (“vaping”) advertisement had been approved in the United Kingdom (UK) in January 2013. Currently, there are an estimated 2.9 million UK e-cigarette users. The impact of e-cigarette advertisement on tobacco use has not been studied in detail. We hypothesised that e-cigarette advertisement impacts on conventional-smoking behaviour. Methods A cross-sectional structured survey assessed the impact of e-cigarette advertising on the perceived social acceptability of cigarette and e-cigarette smoking and on using either cigarettes or e-cigarettes (on a scale of 1 to 5/ ‘not at all’ to ‘a lot’). The survey was administered between January to March 2015 to London university students, before and after viewing 5 UK adverts including a TV commercial. Results Data were collected from 106 participants, (22±2years, 66%male), comprising cigarette-smokers (32%), non-smokers (54%) and ex-smokers (14%). This included vapers (16%), non-vapers (77%) and ex-vapers (7%). After viewing the adverts smokers (2.6±1.0 vs 3.8±1.1, p=0.001) and non-smokers (3.2±0.7 vs 3.7±0.8, p=0.007) felt smoking was more socially acceptable, compared to before viewing. Participants were more likely to try both e-cigarettes (1.90±1.03 to 3.09±1.11, p<0.001) and conventional cigarettes (1.73±0.83 to 2.27±1.13, p<0.001) after viewing the adverts compared to before. Vapers were less likely to smoke both an e-cigarette, and a convention cigarette after viewing the adverts. Conclusion: E-cigarette advertising encourages e-cigarette and conventional cigarette use in young smokers and non-smokers. The adverts impact on the social acceptability of smoking without regarding the importance of public health campaign championing smoking cessation

A cross sectional evaluation of a total smoking ban at a large Australian university

Background: Total smoking bans have been found to contribute positively to the health of non-smokers by reducing exposure to second-hand smoke, and to enhance the likelihood of cessation among smokers. Methods: Two cross-sectional electronic surveys of staff and students at a large Australian university were conducted prior (n = 969) and 1 year post (n = 670) the implementation of a smoke free campus policy. Demographics, tobacco use, intention to quit, attitudes towards smoking and smoking restrictions and awareness of and attitudes towards the campus smoking policy were measured. Results: Exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) reduced significantly (p < 0.001) one year after policy implementation. Smoking prevalence was similar at both time periods (T1 9.3 %; T2 8.4 %) and over half of smokers indicated they were planning to quit smoking in the future (T1 65.5 vs T2 62.3 %). There was a significant increase in positive responses to the statement the campus should be totally smoke free including all outdoor areas at T2 compared to T1 (T1 60.8 vs T2 71.4 %; p < 0.001), however respondents felt there should be places on campus for smokers to smoke (T1 53.6 vs T2 47 %; p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found a significant positive difference in exposure SHS after implementation of the total ban. Although prevalence of smoking in this study was low, the proportion of respondents who were contemplating smoking cessation suggests support for smokers would be beneficial. Continued awareness raising, education and enforcement is likely to enhance the long term outcomes of the total ban

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: placing an equity lens on existing systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: With smoking increasingly confined to lower socio-economic groups, the tobacco control community has been urged to identify which population-level tobacco control interventions work in order to help tackle smoking-related health inequalities. Systematic reviews have a crucial role to play in this task. This overview was therefore carried out in order to (i) summarise the evidence from existing systematic reviews of population-level tobacco control interventions, and (ii) assess the need for a new systematic review of primary studies, with the aim of assessing the differential effects of such interventions. METHODS: Systematic review methods were used to evaluate existing systematic reviews that assessed a population-level tobacco control intervention and which reported characteristics of included participants in terms of at least one socio-demographic or socio-economic factor. RESULTS: Nineteen systematic reviews were included. Four reviews assessed interventions aimed at the population level alone, whilst fifteen included at least one primary study that examined this type of intervention. Four reviews assessed youth access restrictions, one assessed the effects of increasing the unit price of tobacco, and six assessed smoking bans or restrictions. Of the eight remaining reviews, six assessed multi-component community based interventions, in which the population-level interventions were part of a wider tobacco control programme, and two assessed the impact of smoking bans or restrictions in reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We found tentative evidence that the effect of increasing the unit price of tobacco products may vary between ethnic and socio-economic groups, and between males and females. However, differences in the context and the results of different reviews made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Few identified reviews explicitly attempted to examine differences in intervention effects between socio-demographic groups. Therefore on the basis of these reviews the potential for smoking bans, and youth access restrictions to decrease social inequalities in smoking remains unknown. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that increases in the unit price of tobacco may have the potential to reduce smoking related health inequalities. There is a need for equity effects to be explicitly evaluated in future systematic reviews and in primary research assessing the effects of population tobacco control interventions

The role of thrombospondins in wound healing, ischemia, and the foreign body reaction

Thrombospondin (TSP) 1 and TSP2 have been implicated in the regulation of several processes during tissue repair. Due to their matricellular nature, these proteins are thought to modulate cell-matrix interactions through a variety of mechanisms specific to the spatio-temporal context of their expression. Most notably, TSP1 and TSP2 appear to play distinct, non-overlapping roles in the healing of skin wounds. In contrast, both proteins have been implicated as regulators of ischemia-induced angiogenesis. Moreover, TSP2 has been shown to be a critical regulator of angiogenesis in the foreign body response (FBR). In this review, we discuss the role of TSPs in tissue repair and examine the mechanistic data regarding the ability of the thrombospondins to modulate cell-matrix interactions in this context

Postsynaptic nigrostriatal dopamine receptors and their role in movement regulation

The article presents the hypothesis that nigrostriatal dopamine may regulate movement by modulation of tone and contraction in skeletal muscles through a concentration-dependent influence on the postsynaptic D1 and D2 receptors on the follow manner: nigrostriatal axons innervate both receptor types within the striatal locus somatotopically responsible for motor control in agonist/antagonist muscle pair around a given joint. D1 receptors interact with lower and D2 receptors with higher dopamine concentrations. Synaptic dopamine concentration increases immediately before movement starts. We hypothesize that increasing dopamine concentrations stimulate first the D1 receptors and reduce muscle tone in the antagonist muscle and than stimulate D2 receptors and induce contraction in the agonist muscle. The preceded muscle tone reduction in the antagonist muscle eases the efficient contraction of the agonist. Our hypothesis is applicable for an explanation of physiological movement regulation, different forms of movement pathology and therapeutic drug effects. Further, this hypothesis provides a theoretical basis for experimental investigation of dopaminergic motor control and development of new strategies for treatment of movement disorders