Assessing the reach of nicotine replacement therapy as a preventive public health measure.

INTRODUCTION: Access to Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is a key public health intervention to reduce smoking. We assessed prevalence and correlates of use of NRT in Ontario, where NRT is available without prescription. METHODS: Participants were a representative sample of 2262 adult smokers in the Ontario Tobacco Survey cohort. Prospectively measured use of NRT over a 6-month period was reported in relation to smoking behaviour and history, attempts to quit, receipt of other supports for cessation supports and attitudes toward NRT. RESULTS: Overall, 11% of smokers used NRT over the six-month follow-up period. Prevalence was 25% among the 27% of smokers matching clinical guidelines that recommend NRT as a therapeutic option, and low among smokers not trying to quit. CONCLUSION: With increasing accessibility of NRT, further surveillance and research are warranted to determine the impact of the reach and benefits of NRT, considering both the general and targeted smoking populations.

Predictive validity and measurement issues in documenting quit intentions in population surveillance studies.

INTRODUCTION: Discrete classification of smokers by intention to quit is desirable in many public health and clinical settings. METHODS: Two methodological studies examine measurement properties of measures of discrete-time intention to quit smoking used in population-based tobacco surveillance surveys: an ecological comparison of rates of positive intention in relation to the form of measure used and a prospective analysis examining predictive validity of self-reported quit intentions using multiple possible points of dichotomization of an ordinal measure of intention to quit. The prospective analysis used a repeated measures design and follow-up to 1 year for 2,047 smokers in the Ontario Tobacco Survey cohort. RESULTS: The estimated percent of smokers intending to quit was significantly higher using the Stages of Change intention measure, relative to another single question measure. Significant dose-response effects were found. The sooner one intended to quit the more likely one was to make an attempt or achieve at least 30 days abstinence in the next 6 months. Intending to quit in a month or later was not associated with cessation during follow-up among respondents without prior attempts. Examination of cutpoints revealed no value, which maximized both positive and negative prediction. Regardless of quit attempt history, greatest predictive validity was found where respondents stated that they had no intention at all. DISCUSSION: Measures of intentions quit smoking in specific time periods and expressed as dichotomies have limited psychometric properties but utility in applied research. Our findings suggest a possible measurement effect warranting caution in comparisons across studies.

Origin and use of the 100 cigarette criterion in tobacco surveys.

Truly global standards and definitions will likely never exist for tobacco control surveillance. One difference across definitions of smoking status is whether or not a lifetime consumption of 100 cigarettes is a necessary criterion for ever and current smoking. Frequently asked questions about this measure demonstrate a need for information on its development and appropriateness in different settings. This commentary attempts to assemble information on the origin and adoption of this measure and provide some critical commentary on its usefulness. The question has been traced to Canadian and American mortality cohort studies from the mid-1950s. From there it has spread to inconsistent use in many settings. To our knowledge, it was not originally (or since) empirically defined as a threshold of exposure related to health consequences or future smoking risk when used in youth. Anecdotal evidence over several decades, however, shows the question has pragmatic utility in self-report data collection. It is a useful, if somewhat arbitrary, screener for "never regular" tobacco use among adults, where never smoking needs to be defined in data collection. Use of the criterion may lower prevalence estimates somewhat. Definitions must always be considered when creating time-trends or international comparisons. There are also circumstances where it is inappropriate to exclude individuals who do not meet this criterion from further data collection, or reports. For research in youth, the criterion typically should be used only with more detailed information about experimentation, but it may be a useful additional indicator of established smoking.