No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionNicotine pouches are small, permeable pouches containing nicotine. The nicotine may either be derived from tobacco plants or synthetically produced. Nicotine pouches are available worldwide, but little is known as to how various countries regulate these products. This study summarises nicotine pouch regulatory policies across 67 countries.MethodsThis research summarises insights obtained through active policy surveillance work in which we requested information on the availability of nicotine pouches and applicable policies and analysed responses from representatives of 67 countries (representatives included subject matter experts in government or civil society organisations). These countries span all WHO regions.ResultsWe found significant variation in how countries classify nicotine pouches, with many countries’ current regulatory approach failing to regulate nicotine pouches that used synthetic nicotine. We found 34 countries regulate nicotine pouches with 23 of these countries’ policies encompassing synthetic nicotine. Countries regulating both synthetic and tobacco-derived nicotine pouches generally (1) rely on existing policies for tobacco products and/or medicines or (2) have developed new policies or regulatory classifications that specify nicotine as the substance at issue rather than linking policies solely to tobacco.ConclusionOur work offers novel insight into nicotine pouch markets and national regulatory approaches. Policy approaches vary from not regulating nicotine pouches at all to banning both forms of nicotine pouches. Policies used by countries regulating both tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine pouches offer a roadmap for how other jurisdictions can add effective guardrails to the use of these and other non-medicinal nicotine products.

Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have experimented with a wide array of policies to further public health goals. This research offers an application of multilevel regression with post-stratification (MRP) analysis to assess state-level support for commonly implemented policies during the pandemic. Methods We conducted a national survey of U.S. adults using The Harris Poll panel from June 17–29, 2020. Respondents reported their support for a set of measures that were being considered in jurisdictions in the U.S. at the time the survey was fielded. MRP analysis was then used to generate estimates of state-level support. Results The research presented here suggests generally high levels of support for mask mandates and social distancing measures in June 2020—support that was consistent throughout the United States. In comparison, support for other policies, such as changes to the road environment to create safer spaces for walking and bicycling, had generally low levels of support throughout the country. This research also provides some evidence that higher support for coronavirus-related policies could be found in more populous states with large urban centers, recognizing that there was low variability across states. Conclusion This paper provides a unique application of MRP analysis in the public health field, uncovering noteworthy state-level patterns, and offering several avenues for future research. Future research could examine policy support at a small geographic level, such as by counties, to understand the distribution of support for public policies within states.