2010Tobacco ControlOpen access

Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA

Adrienne B. Mejia, Pamela M. Ling, Stanton A. Glantz

Open full text 93 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Snus (a form of smokeless tobacco) is less dangerous than cigarettes. Some health professionals argue that snus should be promoted as a component of a harm reduction strategy, while others oppose this approach. Major US tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris) are marketing snus products as cigarette brand line extensions. The population effects of smokeless tobacco promotion will depend on the combined effects of changes in individual risk with population changes in tobacco use patterns. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively evaluate the health impact of smokeless tobacco promotion as part of a harm reduction strategy in the US. METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation of a decision tree model of tobacco initiation and use was used to estimate the health effects associated with five different patterns of increased smokeless tobacco use. RESULTS: With cigarette smoking having a health effect of 100, the base case scenario (based on current US prevalence rates) yields a total health effect of 24.2 (5% to 95% interval 21.7 to 26.5) and the aggressive smokeless promotion (less cigarette use and increased smokeless, health-concerned smokers switching to snus, smokers in smokefree environments switching to snus) was associated with a health effect of 30.4 (5% to 95% interval 25.9 to 35.2). The anticipated health effects for additional scenarios with lower rates of smokeless uptake also overlapped with the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Snus (a form of smokeless tobacco) is less dangerous than cigarettes. Some health professionals argue that snus should be promoted as a component of a harm reduction strategy, while others oppose this approach. Major US tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris) are marketing snus products as cigarette brand line extensions. The population effects of smokeless tobacco promotion will depend on the combined effects of changes in individual risk with population changes in tobacco use patterns. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively evaluate the health impact of smokeless tobacco promotion as part of a harm reduction strategy in the US. METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation of a decision tree model of tobacco initiation and use was used to estimate the health effects associated with five different patterns of increased smokeless tobacco use. RESULTS: With cigarette smoking having a health effect of 100, the base case scenario (based on current US prevalence rates) yields a total health effect of 24.2 (5% to 95% interval 21.7 to 26.5) and the aggressive smokeless promotion (less cigarette use and increased smokeless, health-concerned smokers switching to snus, smokers in smokefree environments switching to snus) was associated with a health effect of 30.4 (5% to 95% interval 25.9 to 35.2). The anticipated health effects for additional scenarios with lower rates of smokeless uptake also overlapped with the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 93 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Snus (a form of smokeless tobacco) is less dangerous than cigarettes. Some health professionals argue that snus should be promoted as a component of a harm reduction strategy, while others oppose this approach. Major US tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris) are marketing snus products as cigarette brand line extensions. The population effects of smokeless tobacco promotion will depend on the combined effects of changes in individual risk with population changes in tobacco use patterns. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively evaluate the health impact of smokeless tobacco promotion as part of a harm reduction strategy in the US. METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation of a decision tree model of tobacco initiation and use was used to estimate the health effects associated with five different patterns of increased smokeless tobacco use. RESULTS: With cigarette smoking having a health effect of 100, the base case scenario (based on current US prevalence rates) yields a total health effect of 24.2 (5% to 95% interval 21.7 to 26.5) and the aggressive smokeless promotion (less cigarette use and increased smokeless, health-concerned smokers switching to snus, smokers in smokefree environments switching to snus) was associated with a health effect of 30.4 (5% to 95% interval 25.9 to 35.2). The anticipated health effects for additional scenarios with lower rates of smokeless uptake also overlapped with the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level.

Key concepts: Snus, Smokeless tobacco, Tobacco harm reduction, Medicine, Environmental health, Harm reduction, Population, Harm

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA — Research Paper | ScholarLens