Tembeling 2.0

Tag: appraisal

  • E-cigarettes as a Harm Reduction Strategy

    Introduction

    Amid growing concerns about long-term health impacts and youth uptake, over 33 countries, including Brazil, India, and Singapore, have instituted complete bans on e-cigarettes and vaping products. These bans underscore health concerns, especially regarding potential harms and unknown long-term effects (Ecigator, 2024; Statista, 2024; Global Issues, 2024). In contrast, around 87 nations regulate vaping through age restrictions, advertising bans, and usage limitations to control accessibility, especially among minors (Global Issues, 2024).

    Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, allow e-cigarettes as part of a harm reduction strategy, permitting regulated access to encourage adult smokers to transition away from traditional cigarettes. Australia has adopted a more conservative approach, requiring a prescription for e-cigarette access to balance harm reduction with health safety (Hawai‘i Public Health Institute, 2024). This global disparity highlights the ongoing debate surrounding vaping’s public health role, weighing its potential as a harm reduction tool against addiction risks and youth appeal. This article evaluates e-cigarettes using four established harm reduction criteria—reduction in harm, proven safety, efficacy, and accessibility—to determine whether they align with harm reduction standards.

    Harm Reduction Criteria

    For a product to qualify as a harm reduction tool, it must meet several key principles: demonstrate a reduction in health risks, provide conclusive evidence of short- and long-term safety, show effectiveness in reducing or eliminating harmful behaviours, and ensure accessibility without unintended consequences. This framework forms the basis for evaluating e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy.

    Reduction in Harm

    Harm reduction tools are intended to lower health risks significantly compared to current harmful behaviours. For e-cigarettes, this means offering a lower risk profile than traditional smoking. Public Health England estimates that e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful than smoking” due to the absence of combustion, which is the source of many toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (McNeill et al., 2015). Studies indicate that e-cigarette vapour contains fewer carcinogens and toxic compounds than cigarette smoke, potentially reducing respiratory and cardiovascular risks (Glantz & Bareham, 2018).

    However, e-cigarette vapour includes harmful substances such as formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds, and regular use has been associated with a 30% increased risk of respiratory issues like asthma and COPD (Bhatta & Glantz, 2020). The reduction in harm is further complicated by limited long-term data, leaving the full health impact uncertain. While e-cigarettes may reduce exposure to certain toxins, their overall health implications remain unclear, meeting this criterion only partially.

    Proven Safety

    Safety is fundamental for any harm reduction strategy, requiring thorough evaluation for short- and long-term impacts to avoid introducing new health risks. Current evidence on e-cigarette safety is limited due to their recent introduction, with most studies focusing on short-term effects. Research has raised concerns about increased cardiovascular and respiratory risks; for example, e-cigarette users have been found to have a 56% higher risk of myocardial infarction than non-users, underscoring cardiovascular safety concerns (Bhatta & Glantz, 2020).

    The history of tobacco emphasises the risks of adopting products without robust safety data. Although tobacco use dates back to 6000 BCE, its addictive and harmful properties were not widely recognised until the 16th century. Cigarettes were marketed as safe until serious health risks were confirmed in the 1950s, nearly a century after their mass production began. E-cigarettes, similarly promoted as safer alternatives without long-term data, risk repeating this historical error. Without comprehensive long-term data, e-cigarettes do not meet the safety criterion.

    Efficacy

    Harm reduction strategies should be effective in reducing or eliminating harmful behaviour. Some studies suggest that e-cigarettes may assist smokers who struggle with traditional cessation methods. A trial by Hajek et al. (2019) found e-cigarettes to be nearly twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) when combined with behavioural support. Furthermore, widespread e-cigarette use could potentially prevent over 6.6 million premature deaths among American smokers (Levy et al., 2017).

    However, “dual use” — when individuals continue to smoke while using e-cigarettes — raises concerns, as it can increase overall nicotine exposure, potentially offsetting some of the harm reduction benefits. Evidence on long-term cessation is mixed, with some users returning to smoking or maintaining an e-cigarette dependency (Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2016). While e-cigarettes may offer a transitional tool for some smokers, dual use and sustained dependency challenge their efficacy as a full harm reduction strategy, meeting this criterion only partially.

    Accessibility and Acceptability

    A harm reduction tool should be widely accessible and acceptable to those who may benefit from it. E-cigarettes are widely available in numerous countries, accessible through online platforms and retail outlets. Their popularity, particularly among younger users, is often attributed to diverse flavours and appealing designs. In the UK, approximately 3.6 million adults reported using e-cigarettes in 2021, demonstrating significant accessibility and acceptance (ONS, 2021).

    However, the popularity of e-cigarettes among youth raises ethical concerns. In the United States, vaping among high school students surged from 1.5% in 2011 to 27.5% in 2019, driven by flavoured products and youth-oriented marketing (Cullen et al., 2018). This trend complicates the harm reduction goal, as increased nicotine addiction among youth poses a new public health risk. While e-cigarettes meet the accessibility criterion, ethical concerns about youth uptake remain significant.

    Conclusion

    Evaluating e-cigarettes against harm reduction criteria reveals only partial compliance. While e-cigarettes may reduce exposure to certain toxins compared to smoking, they lack conclusive long-term safety data and show mixed efficacy, especially given the potential for dual use. Although they are accessible and popular, especially among youth, this appeal introduces ethical challenges and potential health risks.

    The history of tobacco illustrates the risks of endorsing products without sufficient safety evidence. Healthcare professionals should avoid repeating these mistakes by endorsing e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool prematurely. High standards of evidence are essential to protect public health and ensure that harm reduction strategies genuinely benefit those in need.

    Disclaimer: This article was drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT for research synthesis and writing. All information included is derived from reputable sources and cited in APA format.

    References

    Bhatta, D. N., & Glantz, S. A. (2020). Electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction among adults in the US population assessment of tobacco and health. Journal of the American Heart Association, 8(12), e012317. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012317

    Cullen, K. A., Ambrose, B. K., Gentzke, A. S., Apelberg, B. J., Jamal, A., & King, B. A. (2018). Notes from the field: Use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2018. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(45), 1276–1277. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a5

    Ecigator. (2024). Overview of vaping regulations by country. Ecigator. Retrieved from https://www.ecigator.com/vaping-regulations-country/

    Glantz, S. A., & Bareham, D. W. (2018). E-cigarettes: Use, effects on smoking, risks, and policy implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013757

    Global Issues. (2024). Ban or restrict? Quandary facing governments as vaping entices teens worldwide. Global Issues. Retrieved from https://www.globalissues.org/

    Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., … & McRobbie, H. J. (2019). A randomised trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

    Hawai‘i Public Health Institute. (2024). The countries where vaping is illegal, banned or restricted. Hawai‘i Public Health Institute. Retrieved from https://www.hiphi.org/

    Hartmann-Boyce, J., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Begh, R., Stead, L. F., & Hajek, P. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3

    Levy, D. T., Borland, R., Lindblom, E. N., Goniewicz, M. L., Meza, R., Holford, T. R., … & Warner, K. E. (2017). Potential deaths averted in the USA by replacing cigarettes with e-cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 27(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053759

    McNeill, A., Brose, L. S., Calder, R., Hitchman, S. C., Hajek, P., & McRobbie, H. (2015). E-cigarettes

  • Recalibrating Careers in Medical Education: A Call for Change in Appraisal and Promotion Systems

    The role of a medical educator or clinical lecturer goes beyond disseminating knowledge; it embodies the spirit of mentorship, guidance, and the holistic development of future healthcare professionals. However, the current landscape in medical education appraisal and promotion systems appears to shift this focus, often prioritising individual achievements over collective institutional goals. This article argues that such systems, heavily influenced by university ranking metrics, could undermine the very essence of education and teamwork within academic institutions.

    The Shift Toward Personal Achievements

    Medical educators once prided themselves on their role as mentors and nurturers of student growth. In the Islamic tradition, this role aligns with the concept of murabbi—a teacher who fosters not just academic knowledge but also spiritual and ethical development. Unfortunately, modern appraisal systems place less emphasis on these nurturing aspects of education. Instead, faculty members are often encouraged to pursue individual accolades, primarily through research publications and citations.

    The increasing focus on research outputs as the primary criterion for academic advancement has led to what many term a “publish or perish” culture, where quantity often supersedes quality in scholarly work. According to research, universities are driven by global ranking systems that primarily focus on research outputs, leading to a shift in faculty priorities from education and mentoring towards securing personal research achievements (Macfarlane, 2011). This change has contributed to the diminishing role of faculty as murabbi—those who mentor with a view to nurturing holistic, well-rounded graduates.

    The Dangers of Ranking Games

    University rankings have gained disproportionate influence in shaping the behaviours and strategies of academic institutions. Metrics such as the number of publications, citation counts, and journal impact factors have become the dominant benchmarks for academic success. A study by Hazelkorn (2015) highlighted the problematic reliance on such rankings, which often fail to account for the teaching mission of universities. The tendency to align institutional goals with these metrics, regardless of context or educational mission, is creating an environment where educators are pressured to focus on individual performance at the expense of broader educational goals.

    This pressure can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, Macfarlane (2011) noted that academic staff are incentivised to prioritise activities that boost their individual research profile, potentially leading to a neglect of their teaching responsibilities. This imbalance risks reducing the overall quality of education and mentorship that students receive.

    The Neglect of Teaching and Real Collaboration

    A career in medicine and medical education is about more than research output. Yet, the current systems undervalue teaching excellence, mentorship, and institutional service. Lecturers may feel demotivated to invest in these areas if they do not contribute directly to promotion prospects. This not only stifles the quality of education but also discourages real collaboration between faculty members. In medical education, where interdisciplinary cooperation and teamwork are essential, such an environment can be detrimental to both faculty cohesion and student outcomes.

    Collaboration is crucial in fostering innovation and holistic educational approaches, particularly in clinical settings where teamwork is a fundamental part of patient care. If academic reward systems are misaligned, these efforts may go unrecognised. In their study, Berthelsen and Hølge-Hazelton (2016) discuss how institutional cultures that prioritise research output over collaborative teaching can lead to a siloed approach within faculties, impeding teamwork and collegiality.

    The Need for Systemic Change

    To address these issues, there must be a recalibration of the appraisal and promotion systems in medical education. Institutions need to re-emphasise the importance of teaching and mentorship, not just as supplementary activities, but as critical components of academic careers. Moreover, universities should develop frameworks that recognise and reward collaborative efforts and interdisciplinary initiatives.

    By valuing the role of a murabbi—the educator who shapes not only the intellect but also the ethical and moral compass of future healthcare professionals—institutions can foster a more holistic and balanced academic environment. According to van Schalkwyk et al. (2015), including student feedback and peer evaluations in promotion criteria can help re-establish the importance of teaching and mentorship in the academic appraisal process.

    Conclusion

    If medical education is to stay true to its purpose, the current focus on individual achievement in appraisal systems must shift towards a more balanced approach that values education, collaboration, and mentorship. Faculty members should be empowered and motivated to contribute to the overall vision of their institutions, embracing their roles as educators and murabbi. Without such systemic changes, teamwork, collaboration, and the essence of medical education risk being eroded, ultimately compromising the quality of healthcare professionals we produce.

    References

    Berthelsen, H., & Hølge-Hazelton, B. (2016). Interdisciplinary collaboration: Barriers and facilitators across disciplines. Nursing Education Today, 40, 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.02.007

    Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137446671

    Macfarlane, B. (2011). The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00467.x

    van Schalkwyk, S., Hafler, J., Brewer, T., et al. (2015). Fostering communities of practice: A qualitative study of the role of academic institutions in advancing education scholarship. Academic Medicine, 90(6), 802-808. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000698