Community Perceptions of Flavor Restriction Policies: A Scoping Review of Disaggregated Outcomes.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Tong Lin, Jill M Singer, Megan E Roberts
{"title":"Community Perceptions of Flavor Restriction Policies: A Scoping Review of Disaggregated Outcomes.","authors":"Tong Lin, Jill M Singer, Megan E Roberts","doi":"10.1093/ntr/ntaf157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Increasingly, U.S. states and localities are passing policies to restrict menthol and other characterizing flavors in tobacco products. Given the disproportionate use of flavored tobacco among historically marginalized groups, such restrictions have the potential to promote health equity. This scoping review aimed to characterize community perceptions of flavor restrictions using an equity lens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a PubMed search for U.S.-based studies that reported on flavor restriction outcomes, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, or LGBTQ identity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 22 studies identified, two foci emerged: factors influencing the passage of flavor restrictions (e.g., policy support) and the impacts of implementing these restrictions (e.g., cessation intentions). Support for flavor restrictions varied by product and population: menthol cigarette restrictions received notably higher support among African American and Hispanic communities, while evidence for e-cigarette flavor restrictions was mixed-some studies reported minimal subgroup differences, whereas others reported higher support among specific racial/ethnic groups. A few studies discussed unintended consequences, such as product substitution or engagement with illicit channels; these studies were also mixed regarding which racial/ethnic groups would be most impacted. Key research gaps included long-term behavioral outcomes and outcomes across LGBTQ identities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While there are clear racial/ethnic differences for support of menthol cigarette bans, much of the literature on other types of flavor restrictions is mixed. Further research is needed to resolve these discrepancies and expand beyond race and ethnicity when disaggregating subgroups. Such efforts are critical to ensuring flavor restrictions achieve their intended public health benefits and advance health equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":19241,"journal":{"name":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaf157","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Increasingly, U.S. states and localities are passing policies to restrict menthol and other characterizing flavors in tobacco products. Given the disproportionate use of flavored tobacco among historically marginalized groups, such restrictions have the potential to promote health equity. This scoping review aimed to characterize community perceptions of flavor restrictions using an equity lens.

Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for U.S.-based studies that reported on flavor restriction outcomes, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, or LGBTQ identity.

Results: Across the 22 studies identified, two foci emerged: factors influencing the passage of flavor restrictions (e.g., policy support) and the impacts of implementing these restrictions (e.g., cessation intentions). Support for flavor restrictions varied by product and population: menthol cigarette restrictions received notably higher support among African American and Hispanic communities, while evidence for e-cigarette flavor restrictions was mixed-some studies reported minimal subgroup differences, whereas others reported higher support among specific racial/ethnic groups. A few studies discussed unintended consequences, such as product substitution or engagement with illicit channels; these studies were also mixed regarding which racial/ethnic groups would be most impacted. Key research gaps included long-term behavioral outcomes and outcomes across LGBTQ identities.

Conclusions: While there are clear racial/ethnic differences for support of menthol cigarette bans, much of the literature on other types of flavor restrictions is mixed. Further research is needed to resolve these discrepancies and expand beyond race and ethnicity when disaggregating subgroups. Such efforts are critical to ensuring flavor restrictions achieve their intended public health benefits and advance health equity.

社区对风味限制政策的看法:分类结果的范围审查。
导言:越来越多的美国各州和地方正在通过限制烟草产品中薄荷醇和其他特征香料的政策。鉴于历史上处于边缘地位的群体过度使用加味烟草,这种限制有可能促进卫生公平。这个范围审查的目的是用公平的视角来描述社区对风味限制的看法。方法:我们在PubMed检索了基于美国的研究,这些研究报告了按种族、民族或LGBTQ身份分类的风味限制结果。结果:在确定的22项研究中,出现了两个焦点:影响香料限制通过的因素(例如,政策支持)和实施这些限制的影响(例如,戒烟意图)。对口味限制的支持因产品和人群而异:薄荷烟限制在非裔美国人和西班牙裔社区得到了明显更高的支持,而对电子烟口味限制的证据则是混合的——一些研究报告的亚组差异很小,而其他研究报告的亚组差异在特定种族/族裔群体中得到了更高的支持。一些研究讨论了意想不到的后果,例如产品替代或参与非法渠道;这些研究在哪些种族/族裔群体受影响最大方面也存在分歧。主要的研究空白包括长期行为结果和跨LGBTQ身份的结果。结论:虽然在支持薄荷香烟禁令方面存在明显的种族/民族差异,但许多关于其他类型口味限制的文献都是混合的。需要进一步的研究来解决这些差异,并在细分子群体时扩展到种族和民族之外。这些努力对于确保风味限制实现其预期的公共卫生效益和促进健康公平至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
268
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Nicotine & Tobacco Research is one of the world''s few peer-reviewed journals devoted exclusively to the study of nicotine and tobacco. It aims to provide a forum for empirical findings, critical reviews, and conceptual papers on the many aspects of nicotine and tobacco, including research from the biobehavioral, neurobiological, molecular biologic, epidemiological, prevention, and treatment arenas. Along with manuscripts from each of the areas mentioned above, the editors encourage submissions that are integrative in nature and that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal is sponsored by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT). It publishes twelve times a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信