Awareness and Perceived Risk of Heated Tobacco Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Heated tobacco products (such as IQOS) and e-cigarettes have been introduced and advertised in a variety of ways despite inconclusive evidence regarding their safety and benefit for smoking cessation. In this study, we examine the awareness, use, and perceived risk of these products among recent smokers. Methods: In 2017, we conducted an online survey of 727 current and recent smokers in Ontario. We asked participants about their awareness, use, and perceived risk of heated tobacco products and e-cigarettes. Results: Among respondents, 10% were aware of heated tobacco products, and 3% had ever used them. Compared to non-ecigarette users, e-cigarette users were more likely to agree with statements that heated tobacco is less harmful than regular cigarettes, e-cigarette use is less harmful than regular cigarettes, and both products can help smokers stop smoking regular cigarettes. Conclusions: Respondents who used e-cigarettes were more likely to have positive perceptions about heated tobacco and may be more susceptible to the marketing of these products. It is important to monitor the use of multiple nicotine products to inform policies and programming for these products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".