A Comparison of Nicotine Delivery Systems in a Multimodality Smoking Cessation Program

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 73,77-78,81 ◽  
Author(s):  
DEBORAH KUPECZ ◽  
ALLAN PROCHAZKA
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Abdul Hameed ◽  
Daud Malik

Background. This research has been conducted to assess smokers’ knowledge and behavior vis-à-vis combustible smoking cessation, prevalence, and risk, and the use of alternative nicotine delivery systems to quit smoking. Methods. A mixed-method approach utilizing cross section primary survey data and comprising descriptive and s-KAP index analysis has been adopted to ascertain the relationship between dependent and independent s-KAP variables; the principal component analysis methodology has been used to determine the use of alternative nicotine delivery systems. Results. Most of the smokers were aged between 15 and 35 years. A predominant 69.8% of the smokers came from middle-class background. Moreover, 71.3% were unaware of any alternative Tobacco Harm Reduction product. A majority of the respondents (68.2%) were keen to quit smoking. However, when asked why they had not succeeded, 52.9% reported addiction to nicotine as the main impediment. In Pakistan, lack of smoking cessation services is the weak link in the fight against the tobacco epidemic. Smokers are generally unaware of the Tobacco Harm Reduction products available in Pakistan; moreover, only 10.9% of the respondents were willing to spend more than Rs. 4000 per month on Tobacco Harm Reduction products. The average s-KAP score for young adults below the age of 20 was much lower than the national average but improved with the level of education. Interestingly, the score of smokers who had ever tried to quit smoking was slightly higher than that of those who had never tried to quit. Conclusion. There is intent to quit combustible smoking but the policy and infrastructure necessary for successful quitting are missing. Pakistan needs to concentrate on two fronts: a large scale awareness campaign against the use and harms of combustible smoking and simultaneously providing affordable and accessible smoking services across the country. Pakistan should look at the use and regulation of safer nicotine products in the UK. The country should carefully weigh the options of ensuring how to incorporate the use of safer nicotine delivery systems in its tobacco control efforts.


2019 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Erku ◽  
Coral E. Gartner ◽  
Jennifer Thi Do ◽  
Kylie Morphett ◽  
Kathryn J. Steadman

Author(s):  
James Edgar Lim

Abstract Introduction Nonconsequentialist ethicists have noted that small harms, goods, or claims should not count against large claims. For example, given a choice between saving one life and a large group of people with minor headaches, we ought to save the one life, no matter how large the group is. This principle has been called limited aggregation. The principle of limited aggregation might have implications on public health policy, given that public health policy involves weighing the claims of individuals against one another. Aims and Methods I aim to show that limited aggregation has implications for policies on e-cigarettes and alternative nicotine delivery systems. The methodology used in this study involves critical analysis of existing literature and pre-theoretical moral views. Results This study does not use empirical research. Conclusions In deciding to allow or encourage the use of e-cigarettes or alternative nicotine delivery systems, we sometimes must weigh benefits to each existing smoker affected by the policy against risks to each nonsmoker affected. I argue in this paper that when these risks, to each individual nonsmoker, are sufficiently small, we ought not to count them against more significant benefits to smokers. This applies even when the number of nonsmokers affected by a policy exceeds the number of smokers. Implications This paper implies that policymakers ought to be sensitive to the scale of benefits or risks introduced by a policy on individuals. If the negative side effects, on each affected individual, of a proposed policy are sufficiently small, they do not count against the beneficial goals of that policy. Depending on the expected effects of each given e-cigarette policy, this may give policymakers defeasible reasons to prioritize the needs of current smokers, who may each gain a lot from various means of smoking cessation, over nonsmokers, who each may only have a small chance of picking up smoking.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document