ReviewTobacco prevention & cessation2026
International best practice in the cessation of vaping and non
Review in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Increasing use of e-cigarettes and forms of non-combustible nicotine consumption, especially among children and young people who do not smoke, is an emerging challenge for traditional services oriented to stop smoking care. However, as services struggle to manage these newer presentations, there is a paucity of guidance for supporting cessation. This rapid review sought to evaluate the extent to which interventions for the cessation of vaping and non-combustible nicotine products align with best practice, and to understand what barriers, facilitators and user-reported preferences for service features have been reported. Methods: A systematic search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, and Scopus) was conducted on 18 November 2025 to search for vaping and non-combustible nicotine cessation interventions published since 2003. The included interventions were evaluated using a framework to assess the extent to which they aligned with best practice in public health. Information regarding barriers and facilitators to implementation, as well as user-reported preferences for intervention delivery, were extracted and synthesized in a narrative synthesis. Results: Findings from 23 studies (n=10373) revealed that alignment with best practice was highest in the areas of relevance (16/23), replicability (14/23) and effectiveness (12/23). Alignment was poorest in the areas of stakeholder collaboration (3/23) and sustainability (3/23). Interventions which prioritized accessibility, flexibility, and autonomy were noted by authors as facilitators to implementation. Participants demonstrated a preference for digital, low-burden interventions with social support. Conclusions: This rapid review identified opportunities to more effectively embed best practice principles in intervention design and delivery. The findings of this review can be used to inform the development of services which aim to reduce the impact of nicotine addiction fueled by vaping and non-combustible nicotine product use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.