ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2024
[What does Harm Reduction in Tobacco Use means to Public Health].
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Emerging forms of tobacco and nicotine use: The importance of structured documentation in health records].Atencion primaria · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Harm reduction is a classic Public Health concept to refer to the reduction of the negative effect of drug use/abuse with a focus on justice and human rights, but the tobacco industry has been perverting this concept for years and using it as a tool for its own marketing. This publication details what real harm reduction action on tobacco use would be, when it should be implemented, and what pillars it should be based on. Different methods of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco and nicotine have been tried and tested over time, but the results have been poor; therefore, smoking cessation by the various officially recognised methods is recommended as a priority objective, using the tools that are truly supported by science. In contrast, it also explains the strategies developed by the industry to manipulate consumers and make them dependent on products that can eventually kill them: from the development of filtered cigarettes to light cigarettes, and from menthol to flavoured vapes. In all cases, they have falsely led people to believe that they were developing less toxic products when they were not. Nowadays, both light and menthol cigarettes are banned in Spain, filters have not reduced risk but increased the use, and vapes try to replace cigarettes with their attractive flavours and their false legend of healthier products when what they are really doing is maintaining the same addiction by changing the object, encouraging dual use, and attracting younger and younger non-smokers. At the same time, a strategy of dividing the opinion of health professionals has been developed, using medical doctors and researchers with recognised conflicts of interest but who manage to confuse consumers. In conclusion, we consider that, although nicotine releasing devices may be useful elements in some particular cases, they are not recommended at the population level as they can promote onset, prevent cessation, as well as maintaining the addictive capacity. The only nicotine products that are recommended are those of pharmacological use approved for the case and provided they are used as a transitional tool to complete cessation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38804329PMC11575274What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.