Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Surprising findings on what influences unintended pregnancy from Wise, Geronimus and Smock

Recommendations on how to reduce discrimination resulting from ban-the-box policies cite Starr's work

Brian Jacob on NAEP scores: "Michigan is the only state in the country where proficiency rates have actually declined over time."

More News

Highlights

Call for papers: Conference on computational social science, April 2017, U-M

Sioban Harlow honored with 2017 Sarah Goddard Power Award for commitment to women's health

Post-doc fellowship in computational social science for summer or fall 2017, U-Penn

ICPSR Summer Program scholarships to support training in statistics, quantitative methods, research design, and data analysis

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, March 13, 2017, noon:
Rachel Best

Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Do the Experts Think?

Publication Abstract

Martin, E.G., K.E. Warner, and Paula M. Lantz. 2004. "Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Do the Experts Think?" Tobacco Control, 13(2): 123-128.

Objective: To assess experts' opinions about the future of, and potential to improve individual and public health through "tobacco harm reduction" (THR), the use of novel nicotine containing products purporting to reduce the health risks from cigarette smoking. Design: Semi-structured telephone interviews on nine topic areas, with qualitative content analysis of coded transcripts. Participants: 29 professionals with expertise related to tobacco and interest in THR, including prominent tobacco control advocates (7), pharmaceutical (3) and tobacco industry scientists/ officials (5), non-industry scientists (12), and Congressional staff (2). Results: Respondents agreed that harm reduction is at minimum theoretically plausible, that characteristics of "good" and "bad" THR products can be identified, that government regulation is essential but not likely in the foreseeable future, and that additional scientific data are very much needed. However, there was no consensus on specifics, such as preferred regulatory strategies or examples of ideal THR products. Disagreement was seen not only across but also within respondent categories. Mistrust of key stakeholders - for example, tobacco control advocates distrust of tobacco industry scientists and vice versa - was pervasive, and cited frequently as a barrier to regulation and collaboration. Conclusions: Continued dialogue and debate are essential as we enter a new and uncertain era of products purporting to reduce tobacco produced harm. Experts have concluded that effective government regulation is crucial to minimising the risks associated with THR and maximising potential benefits.

DOI:10.1136/tc.2003.006346 (Full Text)

PMCID: PMC1747871. (Pub Med Central)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next