Preventive medicine
-
Preventive medicine · Dec 2018
Are we guilty of errors of omission on the potential role of electronic nicotine delivery systems as less harmful substitutes for combusted tobacco use?
Two of the more controversial tobacco control and regulatory strategies in recent years are the nicotine reduction and tobacco harm reduction (THR) strategies. They have become inextricably intertwined as a successful nicotine reduction policy might only be possible in an environment in which alternative, noncombusted forms of nicotine like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are available to address the needs of those who were unable or unwilling to completely give up nicotine. Unfortunately, ENDS have emerged as particularly controversial, in part, because they are the first product to carry reduced risk potential while being broadly appealing to cigarette smokers across demographic groups and subpopulations, and to a much smaller extent nonsmokers including, and most controversial, adolescents. ⋯ Commission errors involve a salient, direct link between an action and associated adverse or unintended consequences while omission errors are typically less salient with a more indirect link between inaction and associated adverse consequences. Decision-making research demonstrates that humans have a bias towards avoidance of commission errors and insensitivity to omission errors. This bias may be contributing to some of the aforementioned difficulties in finding common ground regarding the potential contribution of ENDS to reducing the harm of combusted tobacco use.
-
Preventive medicine · Dec 2018
Understanding individual differences in vulnerability to cigarette smoking is enhanced by attention to the intersection of common risk factors.
While smoking prevalence in the U. S. and other industrialized countries has decreased substantially, this change has been unevenly distributed, with dramatic decreases in certain subpopulations but little change or even increases in others. Accordingly, considerable attention has been fruitfully devoted to identifying important risk factors for smoking (e.g., mental illness, other substance use disorders). ⋯ Studying the intersection of risk factors is likely to require use of innovative data-analytic methods. We illustrate, using years 2011-2016 of the US National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health, how Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis can be an effective tool for identifying risk profiles for smoking. Examination of the intersection of these risk factors elucidates a series of risk profiles with associated, orderly gradations in vulnerability to current smoking, including the striking and reliable strength of a college education as a stand-alone profile predicting low risk for current smoking, and illustrating the potentially increasing importance of drug abuse/dependence as a risk factor.