| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
,
M J Thoele2,
R Krueger3,
D Hatsukami1,
1 University of Minnesota Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center, University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
2 University of Minnesota, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
3 University of Minnesota Extension Service, St Paul, Minnesota, USA
Correspondence to:
Anne Joseph, MD
MPH, Section of General Internal Medicine (111-0), VAMC, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA; anne.m.joseph{at}med.va.gov
Objective: To investigate community tobacco control leaders’ attitudes toward harm reduction approaches to tobacco use, in order to assess benefits and risks associated with these strategies.
Design: Cross sectional design involving qualitative outcomes from nine structured focus groups.
Subjects: 47 community tobacco control leaders in Minnesota working in the areas of public policy, clinical treatment of nicotine dependence and youth development participated.
Outcome measures: Participants discussed definitions of harm reduction; benefits and risks of harm reduction methods; and how funds for tobacco control research and programmes should be allocated.
Results: Results indicated inconsistency about the definition of harm reduction: most groups included a broad range of strategies that extended beyond those typically referenced in the scientific literature. Many participants stated that harm reduction might be beneficial, particularly for smokers who could not or would not quit. However, most also expressed concern about a number of risks, including delivering a mixed message about tobacco, inadvertently benefiting the tobacco industry, and causing unanticipated negative health effects. Participants were inclined to suggest public policy measures (for example, smoking bans, increased taxes) as means for reducing harm.
Conclusions: Results indicate that even among tobacco control leaders there is a need for common terminology to describe harm reduction approaches and that public policy approaches to harm reduction are considered more dependable than strategies that involve pharmaceutical treatment or rely on the tobacco industry, such as product modification.
Abbreviations: ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IOM, Institute of Medicine; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; TTURC, Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center
Keywords: harm reduction; exposure reduction; focus groups
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Biener, K. Bogen, and G. Connolly Impact of corrective health information on consumers' perceptions of "reduced exposure" tobacco products Tob. Control, October 1, 2007; 16(5): 306 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Chen, S. Glantz, and E. Tong Asian herbal-tobacco cigarettes: "not medicine but less harmful"? Tob. Control, April 1, 2007; 16(2): e3 - e3. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R S Caraballo, L L Pederson, and N Gupta New tobacco products: do smokers like them? Tob. Control, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 39 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. S. Hecht Deguelin as a Chemopreventive Agent in Mouse Lung Tumorigenesis Induced by Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens J Natl Cancer Inst, November 16, 2005; 97(22): 1634 - 1635. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. T. Levy, E. A. Mumford, K. M. Cummings, E. A. Gilpin, G. Giovino, A. Hyland, D. Sweanor, and K. E. Warner The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2035 - 2042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
