Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of death in the world, and 5 million people worldwide continue to smoke. Further adding to the problem is the fact that smoking cessation rates are very low, and there are some smokers for whom quitting smoking is extremely difficult. Many smokers find nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products unappealing, and even when used as directed NRTs only achieve modest cessation rates. Smokeless tobacco (ST) may be more appealing than NRT and deliver nicotine in a more palatable way to cigarette smokers. ST is also far less harmful than smoking. It is for these reasons that many scientists and health professionals have suggested the use of ST as a substitute for smoking to reduce tobacco-related harm. \n \nAlthough the health risk posed by ST appears to be much less than conventional cigarettes, the extent to which ST may serve as a harm reduction product is highly contentious. Furthermore, although ST products are legal and widely available, it remains unclear whether conventional cigarette smokers in Canada will use ST products as a substitute for cigarettes or as a cessation aid, if at all. And despite the strong evidence for the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels, there is little research on ST health warning labels. \n \nThe current study investigated perceptions of ST products with and without HWLs and relative health risk messages among 611 young adult Canadian smokers aged 18-30. The study sought to examine the impact of ST health warning labels (HWLs) on appeal, willingness to use, and perceived health risk and addictiveness. Participants completed a survey during which they were asked to view and provide their opinions on a series of ST packages that were digitally altered according to each of six experimental conditions: (1) "standard" packages of leading ST brands, (2) "standard" packages + a relative risk message about the harm of cigarettes compared to ST added, (3) "Standard" packages + text HWL, (4) "Standard" packages + text HWL and relative risk message, (5) "Standard" packages + picture HWL, and (6) "Standard" packages + picture HWL and relative risk message. \n \nThe findings indicate that many smokers are unaware that ST is less harmful to health compared to smoking. Despite this, approximately half of young adult Canadian smokers indicated that \niv \nthey were willing to try ST as a substitute for smoking and to help quit smoking. Picture warnings increased misperceptions about the health risk of ST and decreased smokers‘ willingness to try ST, whereas text warnings did not. Similarly, adding a relative health risk message to the warning label that communicates the lower risk of ST compared to cigarettes increased willingness to try ST when added to text warnings, and decreased willingness to try ST even further when added to picture warnings. This study is among the first to examine ST warning labels, and is the first to examine the impact of picture warning labels on ST. Overall, the findings suggest picture warnings may make it more difficult to communicate the differences in risk between ST and cigarettes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».