↓ Skip to main content

Are Australian smokers interested in using low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco for harm reduction?

Overview of attention for article published in Tobacco Control, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are Australian smokers interested in using low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco for harm reduction?
Published in
Tobacco Control, July 2010
DOI 10.1136/tc.2009.033670
Pubmed ID
Authors

C E Gartner, E V Jimenez-Soto, R Borland, R J O'Connor, W D Hall

Abstract

To determine (1) whether Australian smokers are aware of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (LNSLT) products and (2) whether they would be interested in using LNSLT either as a long-term substitute for smoking or as an aid to quitting, if these products were to become legally available. 401 daily smokers were recruited by a market research company to complete an internet questionnaire about their smoking history, knowledge of smokeless tobacco and intentions to purchase LNSLT under different scenarios. Just under half (48%) indicated they were willing to buy an LNSLT product. Predictors of an interest in purchasing LNSLT were low income, poorer health, prior SLT use, belief that SLT is less harmful than cigarettes, switching to a lower tar cigarette in the past year, ever using nicotine replacement therapy products for quitting or other reasons, having made a failed cessation attempt in the previous year and not planning to quit smoking. Analysis of quitting and LNSLT purchasing intentions under different scenarios suggest that making LNSLT available at a much lower cost than smoked cigarettes while increasing taxes on cigarettes could provide a greater reduction in the number of smokers than the same tax increase alone. These results support further examination of the potential for LNSLT to reduce smoking-related harm in Australia.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Psychology 6 14%
Environmental Science 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2012.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Tobacco Control
#2,658
of 3,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,897
of 103,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tobacco Control
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 103,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.