[What does Harm Reduction in Tobacco Use means to Public Health]. / Reducción de daños en tabaquismo desde la Salud Pública.

Harm reduction is a classic Public Health concept to refer to the reduction of the negative effect of drug use/abuse with a focus on justice and human rights, but the tobacco industry has been perverting this concept for years and using it as a tool for its own marketing. This publication details what real harm reduction action on tobacco use would be, when it should be implemented, and what pillars it should be based on. Different methods of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco and nicotine have been tried and tested over time, but the results have been poor; therefore, smoking cessation by the various officially recognised methods is recommended as a priority objective, using the tools that are truly supported by science. In contrast, it also explains the strategies developed by the industry to manipulate consumers and make them dependent on products that can eventually kill them: from the development of filtered cigarettes to light cigarettes, and from menthol to flavoured vapes. In all cases, they have falsely led people to believe that they were developing less toxic products when they were not. Nowadays, both light and menthol cigarettes are banned in Spain, filters have not reduced risk but increased the use, and vapes try to replace cigarettes with their attractive flavours and their false legend of healthier products when what they are really doing is maintaining the same addiction by changing the object, encouraging dual use, and attracting younger and younger non-smokers. At the same time, a strategy of dividing the opinion of health professionals has been developed, using medical doctors and researchers with recognised conflicts of interest but who manage to confuse consumers. In conclusion, we consider that, although nicotine releasing devices may be useful elements in some particular cases, they are not recommended at the population level as they can promote onset, prevent cessation, as well as maintaining the addictive capacity. The only nicotine products that are recommended are those of pharmacological use approved for the case and provided they are used as a transitional tool to complete cessation.

La reducción de daños es un concepto clásico de la Salud Pública para referirse a la reducción del impacto negativo del consumo de drogas con un enfoque de justicia y derechos humanos, pero la industria tabacalera lleva años pervirtiendo este concepto y utilizándolo como una herramienta de su propio marketing. La presente publicación detalla qué sería una verdadera acción de reducción de daños en tabaquismo, cuándo debería aplicarse y en qué pilares debería sostenerse. A lo largo del tiempo se han probado distintos métodos de minorar los efectos perjudiciales del tabaco y de la nicotina, si bien los resultados han sido escasos; así pues, se propone como objetivo prioritario la cesación tabáquica por los distintos métodos reconocidos, utilizando como herramientas las verdaderamente amparadas por la Ciencia. En contraste, se explican también las estrategias desarrolladas por la industria para manipular a los consumidores y hacerles dependientes de unos productos que eventualmente pueden acabar con sus vidas: desde el desarrollo de los cigarrillos con filtro a los light, y de los mentolados a los vapers de sabores. En todos los casos han hecho creer falsamente que desarrollaban productos menos tóxicos cuando no era así. Hoy en día, tanto los cigarrillos light como los mentolados están prohibidos en España, los filtros no han conseguido una disminución del riesgo y sí un aumento del consumo, y los vapers intentan sustituir a los cigarrillos con sus aromas atractivos y su falsa leyenda de productos más sanos cuando lo que están haciendo en realidad es mantener la misma adicción cambiando el objeto, fomentando el consumo dual, y atrayendo a consumidores no-fumadores previos cada vez más jóvenes. Paralelamente, se ha desarrollado una estrategia de división de la opinión de los profesionales sanitarios, con médicos e investigadores con reconocidos conflictos de interés pero que logran confundir al consumidor. Como conclusión consideramos que, si bien en algún caso particular los DSLN (dispositivos susceptibles de liberar nicotina) puedan ser elementos útiles, no son recomendables a nivel poblacional ya que pueden promover el inicio del consumo e impedir la cesación, además de mantener la capacidad adictógena. Los únicos productos de nicotina que se recomiendan son aquellos de uso farmacológico aprobados para el caso y siempre que se usen como herramienta transitoria para la cesación completa.

Current practices and perceived barriers to tobacco-treatment delivery among healthcare professionals from 15 European countries. The EPACTT Plus project.

INTRODUCTION: The latest evidence-based Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Dependence highlight the significant role of healthcare professionals in supporting smokers interested to quit. This study aimed to identify the current practices of healthcare professionals in Europe and perceived barriers in delivering tobacco treatment to their patients who smoke. METHODS: In the context of EPACTT-Plus, collaborating institutions from 15 countries (Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Italy, France, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo, Romania, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine) worked for the development of an accredited eLearning course on Tobacco Treatment Delivery available at http://elearning-ensp.eu/. In total, 444 healthcare professionals from the wider European region successfully completed the course from December 2018 to July 2019. Cross-sectional data were collected online on healthcare professionals' current practices and perceived barriers in introducing tobacco-dependence treatment into their daily clinical life. RESULTS: At registration, 41.2% of the participants reported having asked their patients if they smoked. Advise to quit smoking was offered by 47.1% of the participants, while 29.5% reported offering assistance to their patients who smoked in order to quit. From the total number of participants, 39.9% regarded the lack of patient compliance as a significant barrier. Other key barriers were lack of: interest from the patients (37.4%), healthcare professionals training (33.1%), community resources to refer patients (31.5%), and adequate time during their everyday clinical life (29.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The identification of current practices and significant barriers is important to build evidence-based guidelines and training programs (online and/or live) that will improve the performance of healthcare professionals in offering tobacco-dependence treatment for their patients who smoke.

Impact of the ENSP eLearning platform on improving knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence: An assessment across 15 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: In 2018, the European Network for Smoking Cessation and Prevention (ENSP) released an update to its Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for healthcare professionals, which was the scientific base for the development of an accredited eLearning curriculum to train healthcare professionals, available in 14 languages. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ENSP eLearning curriculum in increasing healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy (perceived behavioral control) and intentions in delivering tobacco treatment interventions in their daily clinical routines. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post design study with 444 healthcare professionals, invited by 20 collaborating institutions from 15 countries (Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Italy, France, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo, Romania, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine), which completed the eLearning course between December 2018 and July 2019. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals' self-reported knowledge improved after the completion of each module of the eLearning program. Increases in healthcare professionals' self-efficacy in delivering tobacco treatment interventions (p<0.001) were also documented. Significant improvements were documented in intentions to address tobacco use as a priority, document tobacco use, offer support, provide brief counselling, give written material, discuss available medication, prescribe medication, schedule dedicated appointment to develop a quit plan, and be persistent in addressing tobacco use with the patients (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based digital intervention can be effective in improving knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and intentions on future delivery of tobacco-treatment interventions.