Dataset Information

Effects of a Fact Sheet on beliefs about the harmfulness of alternative nicotine delivery systems compared with cigarettes.

ABSTRACT:

Unlabelled

Background

This study explored the value of providing information in a Fact Sheet to correct misperceptions about the relative harmfulness of nicotine replacement products (NRT) and smokeless tobacco (ST), when compared to cigarette smoking.

Methods

Four convenience samples from different countries (Australia, UK, Sweden and USA) were surveyed concerning their beliefs about the relative harmfulness of smokeless tobacco and NRT. Study participants were given the Fact Sheet that explained that nicotine, as used by consumers, is not particularly harmful and explained why. They were resurveyed one week later regarding their beliefs about the relative harmfulness of smokeless tobacco and NRT and future intentions to use the products.

Results

In all four samples knowledge increased by similar amounts and beliefs regarding the lower harmfulness of smokeless tobacco increased. However, misconceptions remained common and responses to belief measures were not always consistent. Likelihood of use of ST increased in all four samples after exposure to the Fact Sheet, but interest in NRT use only increased in the US sample.

Conclusions

A Fact Sheet such as this one can help address misconceptions about NRT and smokeless tobacco, at least in the short term. However, as is true of most educational interventions, exposure to a single educational session is not sufficient to overcome misperceptions that smokers have about the relative harmfulness of oral versus combustible forms of nicotine delivery.

SUBMITTER: Borland R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3514329 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of a Fact Sheet on beliefs about the harmfulness of alternative nicotine delivery systems compared with cigarettes.

Borland Ron R Li Lin L Cummings K Michael KM O'Connor Richard R Mortimer Kevin K Wikmans Tom T Ramstrom Lars L King Bill B McNeill Ann A

Harm reduction journal 20120611

<h4>Unlabelled</h4><h4>Background</h4>This study explored the value of providing information in a Fact Sheet to correct misperceptions about the relative harmfulness of nicotine replacement products (NRT) and smokeless tobacco (ST), when compared to cigarette smoking.<h4>Methods</h4>Four convenience samples from different countries (Australia, UK, Sweden and USA) were surveyed concerning their beliefs about the relative harmfulness of smokeless tobacco and NRT. Study participants were given the ...[more]

PMID: 22687137

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionReduced-risk nicotine products are more likely to replace smoking if they match cigarettes in nicotine delivery and user satisfaction.Aims and methodsWe examined the nicotine delivery profile and user ratings of IQOS heated tobacco system and compared it with own brand cigarettes (OBC), Juul, and refillable e-cigarettes (EC).Participants (N = 22) who were daily vapers smoking <1 cigarette per day on average, attended after overnight abstinence from smoking and vaping, to test at separate sessions OBC, IQOS, and Juul. Eight participants also tested two refillable EC using e-liquid with 20 mg/mL nicotine. At each session, a baseline blood sample was taken before participants used the product ad libitum for 5 minutes. Further samples were taken at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 30 minutes. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), and nicotine delivered over 30 minutes (AUC0->30) were calculated. Participants rated their urge to smoke and product characteristics.ResultsIQOS delivered less nicotine than OBC (AUC0->30: z = -2.73, p = .006), and than Juul (AUC0->30: z = -3.08, p = .002; Cmax: z = -2.65, p = .008), and received less favorable ratings than Juul (effect on urges to smoke: z = -3.23, p = .001; speed of urge relief: z = -2.75, p = .006; recommendation to friends: z = -2.45, p = .014). Compared with refillable EC, IQOS delivered nicotine faster (Tmax: z = -2.37, p = .018), but received less favorable overall ratings (recommended to friends: z = -2.32, p = .021).ConclusionsIQOS' pharmacokinetic profile suggests that it may be less effective than Juul for smoking cessation, but at least as effective as refillable EC; although participants, who were experienced vapers rather than IQOS users, preferred refillable EC.ImplicationsBecause IQOS provided less efficient nicotine delivery than cigarettes and Juul in this sample, and also had a weaker effect on urges to smoke than Juul, it could be less helpful than Juul in assisting such dual users, and possibly smokers generally, to switch to an alternative product. IQOS, however, provided nicotine faster than refillable EC products, although participants preferred EC.

Project description:Assess perceptions of prevalence, safety, and screening practices for cigarettes and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe), marijuana (and synthetic marijuana), electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; eg, e-cigarettes), nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), and smoking-cessation medications during pregnancy, among primary care physicians (PCPs) providing obstetric care.A web-based, cross-sectional survey was e-mailed to 3750 US physicians (belonging to organizations within the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance). Several research groups' questions were included in the survey. Only physicians who reported providing "labor and delivery" obstetric care responded to questions related to the study objectives.A total of 1248 physicians (of 3750) responded (33.3%) and 417 reported providing labor and delivery obstetric care. Obstetric providers (N = 417) reported cigarette (54%), marijuana (49%), and ENDS use (24%) by "Some (6% to 25%)" pregnant women, with 37% endorsing that "Very Few (1% to 5%)" pregnant women used ENDS. Providers most often selected that very few pregnant women used NRT (45%), cessation medications (ie, bupropion or varenicline; 37%), and synthetic marijuana (23%). Significant proportions chose "Do not Know" for synthetic marijuana (58%) and ENDS (27%). Over 90% of the sample perceived that use of or exposure to cigarettes (99%), synthetic marijuana (99%), SHS (97%), marijuana (92%), or ENDS (91%) were unsafe during pregnancy, with the exception of NRT (44%). Providers most consistently screened for cigarette (85%) and marijuana use (63%), followed by SHSe in the home (48%), and ENDS (33%) and synthetic marijuana use (28%). Fewer than a quarter (18%) screened consistently for all substances and SHSe. One third (32%) reported laboratory testing for marijuana and 3% reported laboratory testing for smoking status.This sample of PCPs providing obstetric care within academic settings perceived cigarettes, marijuana, and ENDS use to be prevalent and unsafe during pregnancy. Opportunities for increased screening during pregnancy across these substances were apparent.

Dataset Information

Effects of a Fact Sheet on beliefs about the harmfulness of alternative nicotine delivery systems compared with cigarettes.

Unlabelled

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effects of a Fact Sheet on beliefs about the harmfulness of alternative nicotine delivery systems compared with cigarettes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure