|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
LETTER |
Cancer Prevention and Control, University of California, San Diego, Cancer Center, La Jolla, California, USA
Correspondence to:
W K Al-Delaimy
waldelaimy@ucsd.edu
Keywords: California; cessation; nicotine replacement therapy
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Extensive literature exists about nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) efficacy in randomised clinical trials of smoking cessation,1 yet population data do not show sustained effectiveness after NRT became available over the counter in the USA.2,3 Some claim that product cost is the main obstacle for its lack of population effectiveness.4 A large population based natural experiment is underway in New York that will test this hypothesis. Others suggest that smokers may be using NRT for reasons other than quitting, such as harm reduction or to mitigate withdrawal symptoms when they are unable to smoke.5
We present data from the 2002 California Tobacco Survey (CTS) which is part of large population based, random digit dialled surveys conducted triennially to monitor changes in tobacco use and attitudes in California. The methods for this survey are described in detail elsewhere.6 In order to assess the purpose and pattern of NRT use among California smokers,
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. E Levy, A. N Thorndike, L. Biener, and N. A Rigotti Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce or delay smoking but not to quit: prevalence and association with subsequent cessation efforts Tob. Control, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 384 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |