ArticleHarm reduction journal2024
Modeling the population health impact of accurate and inaccurate perceptions of harm from nicotine.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific evidence clearly demonstrates that inhaling the smoke from the combustion of cigarettes is responsible for most of the harm caused by smoking, and not the nicotine. However, a majority of U.S. adults who smoke inaccurately believe that nicotine causes cancer which may be a significant barrier, preventing switching to potentially reduced risk, non-combustible products like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and smokeless tobacco (ST). We assessed the population health impact associated with nicotine perceptions.
methodsUsing a previously validated agent-based model to the U.S. population, we analyzed nationally representative data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study to estimate base case rates of sustained (maintained over four waves) cessation and switching to non-combustible product use, by sex. Nicotine perception scenarios were determined from PATH data. The overall switch rate from smoking in Wave 4 to non-combustible product use in Wave 5 (3.94%) was stratified based on responses to the nicotine perception question "Do you believe nicotine is the chemical that causes most of the cancer caused by smoking cigarettes?", (four-item scale from "Definitely not" to "Definitely yes"). The relative percent change between the overall and stratified rates, corresponding to each item, was used to adjust the base case rates of switching, to determine the impact, if all adults who smoke exhibited switching behaviors based on responses to the nicotine perceptions question. The public health impact of nicotine perceptions was estimated as the difference in all-cause mortality between the base case and the four nicotine perception scenarios.
resultsSwitch rates associated with those who responded, "Definitely not" (8.39%) resulted in a net benefit of preventing nearly 800,000 premature deaths over an 85-year period. Conversely switch rates reflective of those who responded, "Definitely yes" (2.59%) resulted in a net harm of nearly 300,000 additional premature deaths over the same period.
conclusionsAccurate knowledge regarding the role of nicotine is associated with higher switch rates and prevention of premature deaths. Our findings suggest that promoting public education to correct perceptions of harm from nicotine has the potential to benefit public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.