ABSTRACT
Background This study investigates perceptions of young people towards the planned smokefree generation (SFG) policy in England, which will ban sale of tobacco products to those born in or after 2009. It focuses on SFG policy acceptability, design and implementation.
Methods We conducted 7 semi-structured focus groups with 36 participants aged 12 - 21 (mean = 15) in England over video call and in person. 21 participants were female and 15 male. Participants were purposively sampled to include those from areas of greater deprivation and for use of tobacco or e-cigarettes. Data was analysed using the framework approach.
Results Participants expressed broadly negative perceptions towards tobacco and its manufacturers. Most participants supported SFG policy goals and its focus on freedom from addiction and harm. Many believed the law would benefit from stringent enforcement, inclusion of e-cigarette products, tobacco licensing, and input from young people. A minority raised concerns about the loss of freedom to purchase tobacco and believed it would have little effect on smoking rates.
Conclusion Communication of the freedom-giving nature of SFG is likely to resonate with many young people. Enforcement, communication, and involvement of young people in SFG should be considered carefully to maximise policy impact.
What is already known on this topic Observational and modelling studies of raising the legal age of sale of tobacco show its effectiveness in reducing smoking rates in target populations. The UK is currently on track to be the first nation to introduce a generational ban on tobacco products, but little is known about young people’s perceptions on this policy.
What this study adds The overarching goal and preventative approach of SFG has the power to resonate with young people, including nicotine product users, but there is likely to be a small minority opposed to SFG on philosophical principles and perceptions of limited effectiveness. Young people may have mixed feelings about e-cigarettes being excluded from SFG due to misperceptions of equivalent harm between products.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy Our study suggests involvement of young people in SFG’s design and accompanying communication is likely to strengthen its legitimacy and appeal. Our sample were largely supportive of well-resourced, consistent enforcement of SFG law with strong penalties for retailers who break the law.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study is funded by the HEE/NIHR Integrated Clinical Academic Programme (grant NIHR302872. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Committee at the University of Nottingham (reference FHMS 39-1023).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
