4.5 Article

Tobacco control policies and the concurrent use of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes among men, 1992-2002

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 891-900

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/14622200500266098

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA17942-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accelerating the decline in smoking prevalence requires an understanding of changes in the concurrent use of and the substitution between different tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco (SLT) and cigarettes. SLT could play an important role in reducing the toll of smoking-related illness and premature mortality. Research examining the role of tobacco control policies in explaining concurrent use of SLT and cigarettes has been minimal. Using the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplements (CPS-TUS), we examined tobacco control policies in relationship with adult males' SLT use concurrent with smoking over the period 1992-2002. Consistent with the decline in smokeless-only and cigarette-only rates, concurrent use of SLT and cigarettes declined during the period. SLT users, faced with home or workplace smoking bans, are less likely to report smoking. Smokers with a home ban appear more likely to use SLT, but in more recent years, smokers with a workplace ban are less likely to use SLT. Tobacco excise taxes do not signal substitution between cigarettes and SLT products. Understanding current use patterns of the range of tobacco products, including their interaction with available policy levers, is vital in assessing whether changes that might promote substitution of arguably less toxic SLT products for highly toxic cigarettes are likely to lead to net public health gains or losses. Findings of the present study, in concert with other research about transitional probabilities between behavioral states, will inform the design of an effective policy framework that supports the objective of reducing tobacco-related death and disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据