Smokers' beliefs about the relative safety of other tobacco products: Findings from the ITC Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most tobacco control efforts in western countries focus on the factory-made, mass-produced (FM) cigarette, whereas other tobacco products receive relatively little attention. Noncombusted tobacco products (i.e., referred to as smokeless tobacco), particularly Swedish-style snus, carry lower disease risks, compared with combusted tobacco products such as cigarettes. In this context, it is important to know what tobacco users believe about the relative harmfulness of various types of tobacco products. Data for this study came from random-digit-dialed telephone surveys of current smokers aged 18 or older in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Three waves of data, totaling 13,322 individuals, were assessed. Items assessed use of and beliefs about the relative harms of cigars, pipes, smokeless tobacco, and FM and roll-your-own cigarettes, as well as sociodemographics and smoking behaviors. Cigars (2.8%-12.7%) were the other tobacco products most commonly used by current cigarette smokers, followed by pipes (0.3%-2.1%) and smokeless tobacco (0.0%-2.3%). A significant minority of smokers (12%-21%) used roll-your-own cigarettes at least some of the time. About one-quarter of smokers believed that pipes, cigars, or roll-your-own cigarettes were safer than FM cigarettes, whereas only about 13% responded correctly that smokeless tobacco was less hazardous than cigarettes. Multivariate analyses showed that use of other tobacco products was most strongly related to beliefs about the reduced harm of these other products. Use of other tobacco products was low but may be growing among smokers in the four countries studied. Smokers are confused about the relative harms of tobacco products. Health education efforts are needed to correct smoker misperceptions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".