Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Community tobacco control leaders’ perceptions of harm reduction
  1. A M Joseph1,*,
  2. D Hennrikus1,,
  3. M J Thoele2,
  4. R Krueger3,
  5. D Hatsukami1,
  1. 1University of Minnesota Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center, University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  2. 2University of Minnesota, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  3. 3University of Minnesota Extension Service, St Paul, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 Anne Joseph, MD
 MPH, Section of General Internal Medicine (111-0), VAMC, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA;


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.

  • ETS, environmental tobacco smoke
  • FDA, Food and Drug Administration
  • IOM, Institute of Medicine
  • NRT, nicotine replacement therapy
  • TTURC, Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center
  • harm reduction
  • exposure reduction
  • focus groups

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • * Also Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, and University of Minnesota Medical School

  • Also University of Minnesota, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health

  • Also University of Minnesota Medical School