Dataset Information

Vape Shop Owners/Managers' Opinions About FDA Regulation of E-Cigarettes.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In the United States, prominent sources of vaping products are specialty vape shops, which are subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. This study interviewed vape shop owners/managers to assess: (1) reasons for entering into or engaging in vape shop retail; (2) personnel training, particularly with regard to FDA and state regulations; and (3) how existing regulations are perceived and the anticipated impact of future regulation.

Aims and methods

The current study involved phone-based semi-structured interviews of 45 vape shop owners/managers in six metropolitan statistical areas (Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, and Seattle) during Summer 2018 as FDA regulations regarding minimum age verification, bans on product sampling, and health warnings (among others) were first being implemented.

Results

Vape shop owners/managers reported: (1) entering the industry with positive intentions for their customers, (2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service, and (3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors.

Conclusions

These findings indicate the complexities in implementing tobacco regulations, particularly from the perspective of the vape shop industry. Current findings should inform future regulatory actions and efforts to assess compliance with regulations.

Implications

Current and impending FDA regulation of vaping products present a critical period for examining regulatory impact on the vape shop industry. Current results indicated that many vape shop owners/managers reporting positive intentions for engaging in the vaping product industry and in training vape shop personnel to adhere to regulations. However, the majority reported concerns about FDA regulation and other state/local regulations that could have negative implications for their industry. Particular concerns include difficulty understanding the regulations due to complexity, vagueness, and changes in language and/or interpretation over time. These issues have implications for compliance that must be addressed.

SUBMITTER: Berg CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7885784 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colic is the most common emergency problem in the horse. An owner's ability to recognise colic and seek assistance is a critical first step in determining case outcome. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to assess horse owners' knowledge and opinions on recognising colic. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. METHODS:An online questionnaire was distributed to horse owners with open and closed questions on their knowledge of normal clinical parameters in the horse, confidence and approach to recognising colic (including assessment through case scenarios), and their demographics. Descriptive and chi squared statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS:There were 1564 participants. Many respondents either did not know or provided incorrect estimates for their horse's normal clinical parameters: only 45% (n = 693/1540) gave correct normal values for heart rate, 45% (n = 694/1541) for respiratory rate and 67% (n = 1028/1534) for rectal temperature. Knowledge of normal values was statistically associated with participants' educational qualifications (P<0.01). Owners said if they suspected their horse had colic they would assess faecal output (76%; n = 1131/1486), gastrointestinal sounds (75%; n = 1113/1486), respiratory rate (65%; n = 967/1486) and heart rate (54%; n = 797/1486). There was a lack of consensus on whether to call a vet for behavioural signs of colic, unless the signs were severe or persistent. The majority of participants (61%) were confident that they could recognise most types of colic. In the case scenarios, 49% were confident deciding that a surgical case had colic, but 9% were confident deciding an impaction case had colic. MAIN LIMITATIONS:Most respondents were UK based; risk of self-selection bias for owners with previous experience of colic. CONCLUSIONS:There was marked variation in horse owners' recognition and responses to colic, and significant gaps in knowledge. This highlights the need for the development of accessible educational resources to support owners' decision-making.