slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The College Freshman Nicotine Study PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The College Freshman Nicotine Study

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27

The College Freshman Nicotine Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 162 Views
  • Uploaded on

The College Freshman Nicotine Study. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Stephanie Y. Smith, MPH, PhD Candidate Frances A. Stillman, EdD, EdM. Study sponsored by the ASPH/Legacy STEPUP Dissertation Scholarship. Outline of Remarks. Background Design/Sample Findings.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The College Freshman Nicotine Study' - vivek


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The College Freshman

Nicotine Study

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Stephanie Y. Smith, MPH, PhD Candidate

Frances A. Stillman, EdD, EdM

Study sponsored by the ASPH/Legacy STEPUP Dissertation Scholarship

outline of remarks
Outline of Remarks
  • Background
  • Design/Sample
  • Findings
slide3

Study Objective:

To investigate reported use of “reduced risk” (e.g., purported low yield tobacco, medicinal nicotine, and novel nicotine) nicotine delivery products with awareness and risk perception of these products among full-time college freshmen attending the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland

  • Awareness
  • Risk Perception
  • Reported Use
rationale for study
Rationale for Study
  • Prevalence of smoking among college students is higher than national prevalence -- 25.7% vs. 23.3% (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, 2002)
  • Among 18-24 year olds in Baltimore City, MD -- Smoking initiation increased from 24.7% in 2000 to 39.8% in 2002
  • (MD Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2002)
why harm reduction and reduced risk nicotine delivery products
Why Harm Reduction and “Reduced Risk” Nicotine Delivery Products?
  • We know that 50% of smokers will never quit; thus, focusing only on cessation ignores half the smokers (Hughes, JR. 1998)
definition of harm reduction
Definition of Harm Reduction:

A product is harm-reducing if it lowers total tobacco-related mortality and morbidity even though use of that product may involve continued exposure to tobacco-related toxicants.(IOM. Clearing the Smoke, 2001)

what are reduced risk nicotine delivery products

Medicinal Nicotine

Purported Low Yield Tobacco

Novel Nicotine Products

What ARE “Reduced Risk” Nicotine Delivery Products?
potential unintended consequences
Potential Unintended Consequences

Low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes or cigarette-like products might be less-aversive starter products (Hughes, JR. 1998)

historical examples of reduced risk or harm reducing products and unintended consequences

1950’s “Filtered” Cigarettes

1970’s “Light” Cigarettes

1970s-1980s Smokeless Tobacco

Historical Examples of “Reduced Risk” or “Harm Reducing” Products and Unintended Consequences
slide10

Specific Aims

  • To explore awareness and beliefs about nicotine and “reduced risk” nicotine delivery products among full-time college freshmen attending the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland
  • To test hypotheses comparing the reported use of “reduced risk”nicotine delivery products with psychosocial vulnerabilities (e.g., gender, smoking status) of full-time college freshmen attending the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland
design
Design

1-Year, Two-Phase, Mixed-Method Study

Phase I: Qualitative

Focus Groups

Phase II: Quantitative

Risk Perception Survey

slide12

Phase I Goal:

To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs that college freshmen have pertaining to nicotine, products that contain nicotine, and nicotine addiction.

  • Data gathered from Phase I will be used to tailor a risk perception survey to be administered in Phase II
phase i sample
Phase I Sample
  • Full-Time College Freshmen Attending the Johns Hopkins University

*Smoking Status based on work by Pierce, Choi, and Gilpin (1998)

focus group questions
Focus Group Questions
  • Tell me what you know about nicotine.
  • Tell me about the types of products that contain nicotine.
  • Why would your peers want to use these products?
  • Tell me what you know about nicotine addiction.
phase i preliminary findings
Phase I: Preliminary Findings
  • Tell me what you know about nicotine.
slide16

Phase I: Preliminary Findings

  • Tell me about the types of products that contain nicotine.

Cigarettes

Cigars

Bidis

Chaw/Chew/Dip/Snuff

Pipe

Gum

Patch

Inhaler

Water

Wafers (FG#4)

Cloves/Kreteks (FG#4)

Lollipops (FG#4)

Hookah (FG#123) / Shisha (FG#4)

slide17

Phase I: Preliminary Findings

  • Why would your peers want to use these products?

Look hot (guys only)

Look rugged, dangerous, and gorgeous

Status (cigar only)

Celebration (cigar only)

Victory (cigar only)

Leisure

Image/Glamour

To fit in

Make a name for yourself

Just to experiment

Make smoke rings (they’re cool)

Recreation

Stress relief

Entertainment

Meditation

Socially

Want a buzz

Cessation

Addicted but in denial

Weight loss

Look cool

slide19

Phase I:

Preliminary Findings

  • Why would your peers want to use these products?

“It’s all about image – whatever product I use, it’s all about how it makes me look”

“Shisha is hot -- it’s not addictive -- it’s social -- it’s meditative -- it smells good -- it tastes good -- it looks cool -- it’s inexpensive cuz you split the cost with friends -- don’t even have to smoke it, just smell it -- the smoke isn’t bad for you”

“NRT is for the weak” – All groups associated it with dependency and therefore those who use it are weak, “It’s weak nicotine”

“Whatever product you develop to get people off the cigarette…it’s gotta be prevalent, like everywhere and hot beautiful people gotta be using it…ideally it’d mimic the cigarette”

slide20

Phase I:

Preliminary Findings

  • Tell me what you know about nicotine addiction.

“Cigs are the most addictive, then dip, don’t hear much about the other products and serious addiction problems.”

“Most people view smoking as unhealthy, so if Big Tobacco (BT) markets NRT then it could be viewed as healthy…with BT’s tarnished image, they could profit from making NRT, they could make a bundle…”

“You don’t care who makes it or if it’s regulated or not, you care about which one is cheaper, and which one tastes better”

“Put all cigarette taxes into prevention and cessation for <18 year olds…[treatment centers in schools, support groups in schools, in addition to prevention in health classes]”

slide21

Phase I: In Summary

  • Awareness

High

  • Knowledge

High

  • Beliefs

Use a product socially = no addiction

  • Use a product by yourself = addiction
study limitations
Study Limitations
  • Limited generalizability
  • Phase I qualitative phase lacks ‘saturation’
  • Misclassification of smoking status – no biochemical verification
  • Self-report and social desirability
  • Convenience sample
study strengths
Study Strengths
  • Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
  • Literature review addresses critical gap

Unites multidisciplinary literature

First look at risk perception of “reduced risk” nicotine delivery products in college freshmen

  • Importance of topic

Policy application

Educational and prevention strategies

slide25

Contact Information:

Stephanie Smith

stsmith@jhsph.edu

JHUFreshmanNicotineStudy@yahoo.com

references
References
  • Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G. 2002. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2001. Volume II: College Students and Adults Ages 19-40. (NIH Publication No. 02-5107). Bethesda, MD National Institute on Drug Abuse
  • Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G. 2002. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2001. Volume I: College Secondary School Students. (NIH Publication No. 02-5106). Bethesda, MD National Institute on Drug Abuse
  • First Annual Tobacco Study, Sept. 2002, MD Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
  • Hughes, J.R. 1998. “Harm Reduction Approaches to Smoking: The Need for Data.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15(1):78-79
  • IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2001. Clearing the Smoke. K. Stratton, P. Shetty, R. Wallace, and S. Bondurant, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
  • Pierce, J.P., Choi, W.S., and Gilpin, E.A. 1998. “Tobacco Industry Promotion of Cigarettes and Adolescent Smoking.” Journal of the American Medical Association 279:511-515
phase i procedures
Phase I Procedures

Qualitative Focus Groups

  • Recruitment
    • Flyers
    • Consent
    • Timeframe
    • Compensation
  • 4 Focus Groups
    • Gender
    • Smoking Status