Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Investigating the relationship between prenatal alcohol exposure and children's behavioural and emotional development: analysis of the Growing Up in New Zealand study.

AIMS: To examine the relationship between prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and children's behavioural and emotional development in a large generalizable sample of women and their children in Aotearoa New Zealand. METHODS: Using data from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal cohort, we investigated the relationship between maternal PAE and behavioural and emotional development in 8-year-old children. We explored secondary outcomes including measures of language, executive function, academic achievement, and adaptive behaviour. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in the measures of behavioural and emotional development in children 8 years old based on alcohol consumption. No significant differences in behavioural and emotional development were found based on amount of PAE and when PAE occurred, despite controlling for a range of potential confounding factors, such as neighbourhood deprivation and maternal health measures. PAE was associated with significantly higher scores for parent-rated oral language indicating better oral language. In Maori mothers, PAE was significantly associated with an increased risk of higher scores on two of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire subscales. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between PAE and behavioural and emotional development in children aged 8 years. PAE and behavioural and emotional development are difficult to measure accurately, and the moderating variables between them are complex. Future analyses will require larger cohorts of mothers and their children using precise measures of PAE and outcomes to enable more precise estimates of association.

Does vaping affect the taste and smell perception? An exploratory study with New Zealand young adults.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess potential effects of vaping on individual taste and smell perception in a sample of young adult New Zealanders. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study measured taste and smell perception using intensity and hedonic ratings to two olfactory (i.e., vanillin, methional) and two gustatory stimuli (i.e., sucrose, monosodium glutamate), representing sweet and savoury flavours. Detection sensitivities to sucrose and vanillin were also assessed using a forced choice detection paradigm aligned with the signal detection framework. MANCOVAs were employed to compare sensory perception between groups based on vaping use frequency. Additional regression analyses were conducted to identify potential predictors of intensity and hedonic sensory ratings. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the University of Otago student population and surrounding neighbourhoods of Dunedin, New Zealand in 2023. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 213 university students (98 vapers and 115 non-vapers) RESULTS: We found a significant difference in hedonic ratings for vanillin, indicating a stronger preference among non-vapers. However, no other differences between the two groups were significant. Notably, the use of tobacco and mint flavours were emerged as significant predictors for hedonic responses to the savoury smell and sweet taste stimulus, respectively. No significant differences were observed between groups in the ability to detect weak stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that vape use, particularly with specific flavours, may be associated with alterations in hedonic responses to smells. This finding may have potential implications for how vaping affects on food preferences and dietary choices.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Effectiveness of nicotine salt vapes, cytisine, and a combination of these products, for smoking cessation in New Zealand: protocol for a three-arm, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining short-acting nicotine replacement therapy with varenicline increases smoking cessation rates compared with varenicline alone, but not all people tolerate these medications or find them helpful. We aim to investigate the therapeutic potential of an analogous combination, by evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine, compared to nicotine salt e-cigarettes or cytisine only, on smoking abstinence at six months. METHODS: A pragmatic, community-based, investigator-blinded, randomised superiority trial design will be utilised. Eligible participants will be people who smoke daily (N = 800, 90% power) from throughout New Zealand, who are: aged ≥ 18 years, motivated to quit in the next two weeks, able to provide online consent, willing to use e-cigarettes and/or cytisine, and have daily access to a mobile phone. Recruitment will utilise multi-media advertising. Participants will be randomised (3:3:2 ratio) to 12 weeks of: 1) e-cigarettes (closed pod system, 3% nicotine salt, tobacco flavour) plus cytisine; 2) e-cigarettes alone, or 3) cytisine alone. All groups will receive a six-month, text-message-based behavioural support programme. The primary outcome is self-reported, biochemically verified, continuous abstinence at six months post-quit date. Secondary outcomes, measured at quit date, then one, three, six, and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day, withdrawal and urge to smoke, time to (re)lapse, treatment use and compliance, treatment crossover, dual-use, use of other cessation products, change in e-cigarette products, continuation of product use, acceptability, change in health state, health-related quality of life, change in body mass index, adverse events, and cost per quitter. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials are of particular value as they reflect the 'real world' impact of interventions. The trial will provide some of the first evidence on the effectiveness of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine for smoking cessation, in a country with strong tobacco control policy. Findings will be incorporated into relevant systematic reviews, informing practice and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05311085 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 5th April, 2022.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Towards Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in New Zealand Educators: An Online Survey.

Background:Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a common form of developmental disability but may be poorly understood by professionals working with people with FASD. The aim of the research is to understand the FASD knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and practices among people employed by the education sector in Aotearoa New Zealand and identify gaps in knowledge. Methods: We conducted an online survey of New Zealand Education professionals. The survey focused on the following areas: Awareness of FASD; Knowledge and beliefs about FASD; Impact of FASD on professional practice; and Training needs. Results: Of the 419 participants, most had some knowledge of FASD and its effects on learning; however, there are still gaps that need to be addressed so educators can provide support to individuals living with FASD. Conclusion: There is a need to improve workforce capacity and develop guidelines that address the needs of front-of-line staff working with children with FASD in education settings.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the New Zealand social and community sector: An online survey.

Background: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder but may be underrecognized and misunderstood by people who provide health and social support services. The aim of the research is to understand the FASD knowledge, attitudes, and practices among people employed by the social and community sector in New Zealand. Methods: We conducted an online survey of people working in the New Zealand social and community sector (i.e., social workers, support workers). The survey focused on the following areas: awareness of FASD; knowledge and beliefs about FASD; the impact of FASD on professional practice; and training needs. Results: Most participants reported a basic understanding of FASD, however only 5% felt very well prepared to support someone with FASD. A large majority of participants believed that FASD diagnosis may be stigmatising for individuals or families. Conclusion: There is a need to improve training, professional development, and workplace support for social and community workers in New Zealand to support people with FASD.

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

A Pragmatic Randomized Comparative Trial of e-Cigarettes and Other Nicotine Products for Quitting or Long-Term Substitution in Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco harm reduction has potential to improve individual and population health. However, little research exists on low-intensity interventions, such as encouraging longer-term NRT or e-cigarette use. We aimed to determine whether: (1) encouraging use of nicotine products as long-term tobacco substitutes is more effective for smoking abstinence than standard treatment, and (2) offering e-cigarettes is more effective than NRT. METHODS: An open-label, parallel-group randomized trial was conducted in Australia between 2014 and 2015, with 1563 adult daily smokers, randomized to: (A) standard cessation advice and NRT: advice to use NRT short-term, (B) quit or substitute advice and NRT: advice to use NRT as a longer-term substitute for smoking if required to maintain smoking cessation, or (C) Quit or substitute advice and NRT and/or e-cigarettes. Participants were offered an initial supply of products they could then purchase for up to 7 months. The primary outcome was self-reported continuous smoking abstinence at 7 months. Point prevalence, dual use, and cigarette reduction were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: At 7 months, 2.8% (N = 9) of group A (N = 324) were abstinent, compared with 1.8% (N = 11) in B (N = 620) and 1.3% (N = 8) in C (N = 619) (adjusted odds ratio [ORs]: B vs. A 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-1.63; C vs. A 0.46, 95% CI: 0.17-1.21; C vs. B 0.69, 95% CI 0.27-1.73). There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions associated with trial products. CONCLUSION: A free trial of NRT and first generation e-cigarettes and advice on long-term substitution was no better for smoking abstinence than usual care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration under their Clinical Trials Notification scheme and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001210864). IMPLICATIONS: This pragmatic trial allowed the comparison of existing and alternative policy options under semi-realistic conditions, such as product choice and financial cost. All trial arms had low rates of smoking cessation. The findings suggest that providing unflavored cigalike e-cigarettes without additional support may not increase quitting compared with advice to use standard NRT in a general population of Australians who smoke. More intensive support and education, and/or opportunity to try a range of e-cigarette products, may be required to motivate quit attempts using e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

A framework for considering the utility of models when facing tough decisions in public health: a guideline for policy-makers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the combined disciplines of public health, infectious disease and policy modelling squarely into the spotlight. Never before have decisions regarding public health measures and their impacts been such a topic of international deliberation, from the level of individuals and communities through to global leaders. Nor have models-developed at rapid pace and often in the absence of complete information-ever been so central to the decision-making process. However, after nearly 3 years of experience with modelling, policy-makers need to be more confident about which models will be most helpful to support them when taking public health decisions, and modellers need to better understand the factors that will lead to successful model adoption and utilization. We present a three-stage framework for achieving these ends.

Charting elimination in the pandemic: a SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey of blood donors in New Zealand.

New Zealand has a strategy of eliminating SARS-CoV-2 that has resulted in a low incidence of reported coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in New Zealand via a nationwide serosurvey of blood donors. Samples (n = 9806) were collected over a month-long period (3 December 2020-6 January 2021) from donors aged 16-88 years. The sample population was geographically spread, covering 16 of 20 district health board regions. A series of Spike-based immunoassays were utilised, and the serological testing algorithm was optimised for specificity given New Zealand is a low prevalence setting. Eighteen samples were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, six of which were retrospectively matched to previously confirmed COVID-19 cases. A further four were from donors that travelled to settings with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, suggesting likely infection outside New Zealand. The remaining eight seropositive samples were from seven different district health regions for a true seroprevalence estimate, adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity, of 0.103% (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.12%). The very low seroprevalence is consistent with limited undetected community transmission and provides robust, serological evidence to support New Zealand's successful elimination strategy for COVID-19.

The Potential Effectiveness of COVID-Related Smoking Cessation Messages in Three Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Health authorities are advising smokers to quit to reduce their COVID-related risk. The types of messages that may be effective in alerting smokers to this risk and encouraging a quit attempt are unknown. The aim of this study was to test a series of messages to identify potentially effective communication approaches. METHODS: An online survey was completed by 1509 smokers across three countries (Australia: n = 604; New Zealand: n = 304; United Kingdom: n = 601) in April-May 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned to view just one of four quit messages, two of which explicitly referred to the coronavirus, one referred to risk of chest infection, and one encouraged cessation for financial reasons. Outcome variables included quit intentions, further information seeking, message perceptions, and health and financial concerns. RESULTS: All four messages were associated with significant differences in the proportions of respondents intending to quit within the following 2 wk (increase range: 11%-34%) and with substantial proportions of respondents electing to access additional information (range: 37%-50%). The differences in intentions were significantly larger for the two health-related messages that specifically mentioned the coronavirus. All messages were perceived favorably in terms of acceptability, believability, effectiveness, and personal relevance. Negligible differences in health and financial concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom appear likely to be receptive to messages about their COVID-related risk. Such messages have the potential to increase quit intentions and prompt information-seeking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to encourage smokers to quit to reduce both their COVID-related risks and their risks of a broad range of noncommunicable diseases.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Manaaki - a cognitive behavioral therapy mobile health app to support people experiencing gambling problems: a randomized control trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The low utilisation of current treatment services by people with gambling problems highlights the need to explore new modalities of delivering treatment interventions. This protocol presents the design of a pragmatic randomized control trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) delivered via a mobile app for people with self-reported gambling problems. METHODS: An innovative CBT mobile app, based on Deakin University's GAMBLINGLESS online program, has been adapted with end-users (Manaaki). Six intervention modules have been created. These are interwoven with visual themes to represent a journey of recovery and include attributes such as avatars, videos, and animations to support end-user engagement. An audio facility is used throughout the app to cater for different learning styles. Personalizing the app has been accomplished by using greetings in the participant's language and their name (e.g. Kia ora Tane) and by creating personalized feedback. A pragmatic, randomized control two-arm single-blind trial, will be conducted in New Zealand. We aim to recruit 284 individuals. Eligible participants are ≥18 years old, seeking help for their gambling, have access to a smartphone capable of downloading an app, able to understand the English language and are willing to provide follow-up information at scheduled time points. Allocation is 1:1, stratified by ethnicity, gender, and gambling symptom severity based on the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS). The intervention group will receive the full mobile cognitive behavioural programme and the waitlist group will receive a simple app that counts down the time left before they have access to the full app and the links to the data collection tools. Data collection for both groups are: baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is a change in G-SAS scores. Secondary measures include changes in gambling urges, frequency, expenditure, and readiness to change. Indices of app engagement, utilisation and acceptability will be collected throughout the delivery of the intervention. DISCUSSION: If effective, this study will contribute to the improvement of health outcomes for people experiencing gambling problems and have great potential to reach population groups who do not readily engage with current treatment services. ETHICS APPROVAL: NZ Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/STH/204) TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTRN 12619001605189) Registered 1 November 2019.

Betel Nut Use in Vanuatu: Investigating Opportunities to Reduce Harms to Health.

Background: Betel nut chewing is a public health concern in the Asia-Pacific region and is an emerging issue in Vanuatu. Despite the significant health risks associated with betel nut chewing, few interventions have been undertaken to reduce its harm. Objectives: To investigate betel nut use in Vanuatu and to identify opportunities to reduce its harm and possible interventions, framing the responses using the World Health Organization's MPOWER tobacco control model. Method: Qualitative research design, in the form of semi-structured interviews with ten participants with expertise in health, agriculture, education or non-communicable disease in Port Vila, Vanuatu during June 2017. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a general inductive approach was used to identify key themes. Results: Participants reported a recent increase in betel nut use in Vanuatu due to the influence from Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. To reduce the harm of betel nut use in Vanuatu, participants suggested policies and strategies that aligned with the MPOWER framework that could be adopted for betel nut control, including restricting cultivation and sale of betel nut in Vanuatu and using radio and existing community networks to reach people with messages about the dangers of betel nut use. Conclusion: Betel nut use may be growing in popularity in Vanuatu, where there are potential policy options to minimize harm. The MPOWER model for tobacco control may be a useful framework to help the Vanuatu government to deliver a comprehensive approach to reducing harm from betel nut use.

E-learning: A Tool to Upgrade the Skills of Health Workers to Address Betel Quid and Areca Nut Chewing.

Background: In the Asia-Pacific region, betel quid and areca nut chewing is a public health concern that requires immediate attention. There is a need to improve knowledge about the harmful effects of betel quid and areca nut chewing and train health care professionals to provide preventive interventions. Objectives: To introduce and evaluate the Pacific Open Learning Health Net (POLHN) online courses about the dangers of betel quid and areca nut. Methods: Two self-paced courses about betel quid and areca nut chewing were developed and offered via the POLHN which predominantly engages health professional working in the Pacific islands. Students completing each of the courses were asked to complete a survey measuring course organization, content, length and comprehension level, evaluation methods, adaption to the Pacific island context, relevance to work and level of interaction. Conclusions: The POLHN courses about the dangers of betel quid and areca nut were well accepted by participants for quality and relevancy to their work. POLHN is the first platform that offers a course in betel quid and areca nut in the Pacific and has the potential to be adopted elsewhere.

Investigating Betel Nut Use, Antecedents and Consequences: A Review of Literature.

Background: Betel nut use is a public health issue in the Asia-Pacific region that is often neglected. To control betel nut use, understanding of the adverse effects of betel nut use and evidence-based policies and strategies is necessary. Objectives: This narrative review aims to characterize the current situation on betel nut use at a global level regarding the epidemiology, pharmacology and toxicology, health effects, treatment options, policies and strategies. Methods: We found 139 existing literature published between 1970-2019 on the Web of Science database and other technical documents to collate the most relevant information on betel nut use. Data were categorized into appropriate themes. Results: The literature demonstrates that there is a lack of up to date statistics on betel nut use. There is limited research on the effect of policies and strategies to control betel nut use. Conclusion: Betel nut-chewing countries should focus on understanding which populations chew betel nut and implement appropriate policies, educational and cessation programs to help control betel nut use.