BACKGROUND-AIM:
Tobacco- and nicotine-industry actors promote recurring messages that mis-represent the role of commercial nicotine products as part of the public-health solution. Clinicians, youth advocates and patient groups often face these claims in policy, media and clinical conversations, but lack simple, shared resources to explain the evidence clearly. A pilot tool developed during international policy discussions (COP 11) highlighted predictable misinformation patterns and the need for practical communication support. This project aims to build an evidence- and people-centred toolkit that helps public-health partners respond clearly and confidently, with digital tools used to amplify trusted voices.

METHODS:
Phase 1 (completed): A pilot web tool (tobacco-bs.com) catalogued common tobacco- and nicotine-industry arguments. It was used during COP11 and assessed through basic analytics and informal feedback. Phase 2 (in progress / planned): Broader analysis of communication challenges for clinicians, youth advocates and patient groups; co-design of useful formats (short summaries, suggested wording, simple guidance on recognising misleading claims) and development of a practical toolkit that combines evidence translation, clear messaging and easy-to-share digital materials. Piloting with ERS partners will guide refinement.

RESULTS:
During COP11, the pilot tool was used by 2134 visitors, generating 1487 clicks on nicotine-related arguments. The most frequently triggered tiles were “personal choice”, “we want a smoke-free generation too” and “harm reduction is the solution”. Users said the tool helped them spot repeated claims, understand them quickly and share clear explanations with colleagues. Outside COP, the site also reached people less familiar with tobacco-industry tactics, showing the value of resources that work both inside public-health networks and for wider audiences exposed to these messages. These findings guide phase 2, which will deliver a shared list of common claims, short evidence explanations, ready-to-use messages and simple digital materials for use in clinical, advocacy and media settings.

CONCLUSIONS:
A simple pilot tool helped users recognise predictable nicotine-industry arguments and highlighted the need for accessible, evidence-based communication support. Building on this, the ongoing project is developing a broader toolkit to help clinicians, youth advocates and patient groups respond more clearly and consistently in fast-moving debates. By combining clinical expertise, lived experience and easy-to-share digital resources, the initiative aims to help public-health actors “own the oxygen” in nicotine-policy