Switching to smokeless tobacco as a smoking cessation method: evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although smokeless tobacco (ST) use has played a major role in the low smoking prevalence among Swedish men, there is little information at the population level about ST as a smoking cessation aid in the U.S. METHODS: We used the 2000 National Health Interview Survey to derive population estimates for the number of smokers who had tried twelve methods in their most recent quit attempt, and for the numbers and proportions who were former or current smokers at the time of the survey. RESULTS: An estimated 359,000 men switched to smokeless tobacco in their most recent quit attempt. This method had the highest proportion of successes among those attempting it (73%), representing 261,000 successful quitters (switchers). In comparison, the nicotine patch was used by an estimated 2.9 million men in their most recent quit attempt, and almost one million (35%) were former smokers at the time of the survey. Of the 964,000 men using nicotine gum, about 323,000 (34%) became former smokers. Of the 98,000 men who used the nicotine inhaler, 27,000 quit successfully (28%). None of the estimated 14,000 men who tried the nicotine nasal spray became former smokers. Forty-two percent of switchers also reported quitting smoking all at once, which was higher than among former smokers who used medications (8-19%). Although 40% of switchers quit smoking less than 5 years before the survey, 21% quit over 20 years earlier. Forty-six percent of switchers were current ST users at the time of the survey. CONCLUSION: Switching to ST compares very favorably with pharmaceutical nicotine as a quit-smoking aid among American men, despite the fact that few smokers know that the switch provides almost all of the health benefits of complete tobacco abstinence. The results of this study show that tobacco harm reduction is a viable cessation option for American smokers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".