The Value of Providing Smokers with Free E-Cigarettes: Smoking Reduction and Cessation Associated with the Three-Month Provision to Smokers of a Refillable Tank-Style E-Cigarette
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the uptake of tobacco smoking declining in the UK, smoking is still the leading cause of preventable poor health and premature death. While improved approaches to smoking cessation are necessary, encouraging and assisting smokers to switch by using substantially less toxic non-tobacco nicotine products may be a possible option. To date few studies have investigated the rates of smoking cessation and smoking reduction associated with the free provision of electronic-cigarettes (e-cigarette) to smokers. In this study the Blu Pro e-cigarette was given to smokers for use in place of tobacco for 90 days. The rates of smoking abstinence and daily smoking patterns were assessed at baseline 30 days, 60 days and 90 days. The response rate was 87%. After 90 days, the complete abstinence rate was 36.5% from 0% at baseline. Frequency of daily smoking reduced from 88.7% to 17.5% (P<0.001) and median consumption of cigarettes/day from 15 to 5 (P<0.001). Median days per month participants smoked also dropped from 30 to 13 after 90-days (P<0.001). On the basis of these results there may be value in smoking cessation services and other services ensuring that smokers are provided with e-cigarettes at zero or minimal costs for at least a short period of time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".