Evaluating the implementation of a prescription only regulatory model for nicotine vaping products: A qualitative study on the experiences and views of healthcare professionals

•Australia has introduced a prescription only model for nicotine vaping products.•We interviewed health professionals about implementation of the medical model.•Health professionals were concerned about access to vaping products by children.•Identifying quality tested vaping products was difficult for health professionals.•There was no consensus about the role of vaping products for smoking cessation. Deciding how to regulate nicotine vaping products (NVPs) is a challenge for many countries. Balanced regulation should consider the potential harms to young people from uptake of NVPs alongside the possible benefits of NVPs as a smoking cessation aid. One option is to make NVPs only available via medical prescription to adults who smoke. From October 2021, Australia adopted a unique model that allows prescription access to NVPs that meet a product standard without requiring the NVPs to be approved as therapeutic goods. This research explored the impact of this regulatory model on the smoking cessation practices of health professionals, and their views on the model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 Australian health professionals recruited from professional networks and social media. Health professionals were eligible if they provided smoking cessation advice as part of their role, and included medical practitioners (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 9), and other health professionals that provided smoking cessation counselling (n = 21). Interviews were mostly completed by phone and online teleconferencing software. Questions focused on smoking cessation practices, advice and information provided to patients about NVPs, views about the effectiveness of the model for supporting use of NVPs for smoking cessation and preventing youth uptake, and barriers and facilitators to prescribing and dispensing NVPs. Coding and analysis used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. Findings indicated a lack of consensus amongst the participants about NVPs as a cessation or harm reduction tool. Participants broadly agreed that the model has not been effective in improving quality control of NVPs, or in reducing youth access. Many participants eligible to prescribe or dispense NVPs felt that the current regulatory model placed an undue time and responsibility burden on clinicians. Our research identified several limitations associated with the current Australian prescription-only regulatory model. These were perceived by healthcare professionals to limit t