| Title |
Smokers’ perceptions of smokeless tobacco and harm reduction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1057/jphp.2012.9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mojgan Sami, David S Timberlake, Russ Nelson, Brittany Goettsch, Naeem Ataian, Penney Libao, Elanora Vassile |
| Abstract |
Existing survey data indicate that most smokers are not receptive to harm reduction incentives of switching to smokeless tobacco (SLT). Little is known about the underlying reasons for these views. To explore smokers' perceptions of SLT, we conducted a focus group (eight in total) study of daily smokers between 2009 and 2010 at the University of California, Irvine. We transcribed each 2-hour focus group verbatim and analyzed it using domain analysis. The discussions revealed several reasons why smokers are not receptive to SLT. First, smokers associated new spit-less SLT (that is, Snus) with historic images of chewing tobacco. Second, smokers viewed smoking as an incentive to take a break from their daily routine. Third, smokers expressed lack of control over nicotine delivery when using SLT, relative to cigarettes. These findings challenge tobacco manufacturers' strategies to market a smokeless alternative as a growing number of smoke-free policies are introduced. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 24% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,191,994
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#656
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,540
of 155,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 155,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.