Concern has been expressed about the use of e-cigarettes among young people. Our study reported e-cigarette and tobacco cigarette ever and regular use among 11–16 year olds across the UK. Data came from five large scale surveys with different designs and sampling strategies conducted between 2015 and 2017: The Youth Tobacco Policy Survey; the Schools Health Research Network Wales survey; two Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Smokefree Great Britain-Youth Surveys; and the Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey. Cumulatively these surveys collected data from over 60,000 young people. For 2015/16 data for 11–16 year olds: ever smoking ranged from 11% to 20%; regular (at least weekly) smoking between 1% and 4%; ever use of e-cigarettes 7% to 18%; regular (at least weekly) use 1% to 3%; among never smokers, ever e-cigarette use ranged from 4% to 10% with regular use between 0.1% and 0.5%; among regular smokers, ever e-cigarette use ranged from 67% to 92% and regular use 7% to 38%. ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

Objectives The purpose of the study is to examine adolescents’ awareness of e-cigarette marketing and investigate the impact of e-cigarette flavour descriptors on perceptions of product harm and user image. Methods Data come from the 2014 Youth Tobacco Policy Survey, a cross-sectional in-home survey conducted with 11–16 year olds across the UK (n = 1205). Adolescents’ awareness of e-cigarette promotion, brands, and flavours was assessed. Perceptions of product harm, and likely user of four examples of e-cigarette flavours was also examined. Results Some participants had tried e-cigarettes (12 %) but regular use was low (2 %) and confined to adolescents who had also smoked tobacco. Most were aware of at least one promotional channel (82 %) and that e-cigarettes came in different flavours (69 %). Brand awareness was low. E-cigarettes were perceived as harmful (M = 3.54, SD = 1.19) but this was moderated by product flavours. Fruit and sweet flavours were perceived as more likely to be tried by young never smokers than adult smokers trying to quit (p < 0.001). Conclusions There is a need to monitor the impact of future market and regulatory change on youth uptake and perceptions of e-cigarettes.

Background: To reduce the possibility of cigarette appearance misleading consumers about harm caused by the product, the European Commission’s draft Tobacco Products Directive proposed banning cigarettes <7.5 mm in diameter. It appears however, following a plenary vote in the European Parliament, that this will not be part of the final Tobacco Products Directive. To reduce the appeal of cigarettes, the Australian Government banned the use of branding on cigarettes and stipulated a maximum cigarette length as part of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. We explored the role, if any, of cigarette appearance on perceptions of appeal and harm among adolescents. Methods: Focus group research with 15-year-olds (N = 48) was conducted in Glasgow (Scotland) to explore young people’s perceptions of eight cigarettes differing in length, diameter, colour and decorative design. Results: Slim and superslim cigarettes with white filter tips and decorative features were viewed most favourably and rated most attractive across gender and socio-economic groups. The slimmer diameters of these cigarettes communicated weaker tasting and less harmful looking cigarettes. This was closely linked to appeal as thinness implied a more pleasant and palatable smoke for young smokers. A long brown cigarette was viewed as particularly unattractive and communicated a stronger and more harmful product. Conclusion: This exploratory study provides some support that standardising cigarette appearance could reduce the appeal of cigarettes in adolescents and reduce the opportunity for stick design to mislead young smokers in terms of harm.

Objectives: To compare adolescents’ responses to three different styles of cigarette packaging:novelty(branded packs designed with a distinctive shape, opening style or bright colour),regular(branded pack with no special design features) andplain(brown pack with a standard shape and opening and all branding removed, aside from brand name).Design: Cross-sectional in-home survey.Setting: UK.Participants: Random location quota sample of 1025 never smokers aged 11–16 years.Main outcome measures: Susceptibility to smoking and composite measures of pack appraisal and pack receptivity derived from 11 survey items.Results: Mean responses to the three pack types were negative for all survey items. However, ‘novelty’ packs were rated significantly less negatively than the ‘regular’ pack on most items, and the novelty and regular packs were rated less negatively than the ‘plain’ pack. For the novelty packs, logistic regressions, controlling for factors known to influence youth smoking, showed that susceptibility was associated with positive appraisal and also receptivity. For example, those receptive to the innovative Silk Cut Superslims pack were more than four times as likely to be susceptible to smoking than those not receptive to this pack (AOR=4.42, 95% CI 2.50 to 7.81, p<0.001). For the regular pack, an association was found between positive appraisal and susceptibility but not with receptivity and susceptibility. There was no association with pack appraisal or receptivity for the plain pack.Conclusions: Pack structure (shape and opening style) and colour are independently associated, not just with appreciation of and receptivity to the pack, but also with susceptibility to smoke. In other words, those who think most highly of novelty cigarette packaging are also the ones who indicate that they are most likely to go on to smoke. Plain packaging, in contrast, was found to directly reduce the appeal of smoking to adolescents.

The Australian Government intends to introduce plain tobacco packaging in 2012. We consider whether such a move appears justified by examining the wider marketing literature in order to understand the role that packaging has for consumer goods. Packaging is often called the fifth ‘p’ of the marketing mix. It is an effective marketing medium for all consumer products and helps build consumer relationships through possession and usage. Common packaging strategies to promote the product, distinguish products from competitors, communicate brand values and target specific consumer groups include innovative, special edition, value and green packaging. These strategies, combined with the visual and structural aspects of packaging design, such as colour, size and shape, influence consumer perceptions and purchase and usage behaviour. This gives packaging an important role at point-of-purchase and also post-purchase. Packaging also has a close relationship with the product, influencing perceived product attributes, and is a key representative of the brand. We conclude that plain tobacco packaging appears justified, based on the importance of packaging as a promotional tool, and will fundamentally restrict the opportunity for tobacco companies to influence consumers through package design.

Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. Six themes were identified in participants’ narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create ‘vaccine apartheid’; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.