Surveillance indicators for potential reduced exposure products (PREPs): developing survey items to measure awareness.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, tobacco companies have introduced cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products (known as Potential Reduced Exposure Products, PREPs) with purportedly lower levels of some toxins than conventional cigarettes and smokeless products. It is essential that public health agencies monitor awareness, interest, use, and perceptions of these products so that their impact on population health can be detected at the earliest stages. METHODS: This paper reviews and critiques existing strategies for measuring awareness of PREPs from 16 published and unpublished studies. From these measures, we developed new surveillance items and subjected them to two rounds of cognitive testing, a common and accepted method for evaluating questionnaire wording. RESULTS: Our review suggests that high levels of awareness of PREPs reported in some studies are likely to be inaccurate. Two likely sources of inaccuracy in awareness measures were identified: 1) the tendency of respondents to misclassify "no additive" and "natural" cigarettes as PREPs and 2) the tendency of respondents to mistakenly report awareness as a result of confusion between PREPs brands and similarly named familiar products, for example, Eclipse chewing gum and Accord automobiles. CONCLUSION: After evaluating new measures with cognitive interviews, we conclude that as of winter 2006, awareness of reduced exposure products among U.S. smokers was likely to be between 1% and 8%, with the higher estimates for some products occurring in test markets. Recommended measurement strategies for future surveys are presented.

Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates.

BACKGROUND: Response rates have been declining in statewide tobacco surveys. This study investigated whether there was associated evidence of increasing bias in smoking prevalence estimates. METHODS: Demographic characteristics of respondents to tobacco surveys in Massachusetts and California were compared to population data in the early 1990s, when response rates were high, and in more recent years, when response rates were lower. State estimates of smoking prevalence at three times were compared with estimates from the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplement (CPS-TUS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. RESULTS: Under- and over-representation of population subgroups has not changed as response rates have declined. Smoking prevalence estimates from state surveys remain relatively close to the state-specific CPS-TUS estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that declining response rates have resulted in less accurate or biased estimates of smoking behavior.

The effects on smokers of Boston's smoke-free bar ordinance: a longitudinal analysis of changes in compliance, patronage, policy support, and smoking at home.

OBJECTIVE: We prospectively examined effects of the implementation of a smoking ban in bars on Boston, Massachusetts, smokers. METHODS: A representative sample of Massachusetts smokers was interviewed before and after the smoking ban was implemented in Boston. Participants were adult smokers living in Boston (n = 83) and in 203 other Massachusetts cities and towns that did not adopt smoking bans in bars prior to July 2004 (n = 903). The outcome measures were changes in reports of smoking in bars, frequency of bar patronage, support for smoke-free bars, smoking at home, and exposure to secondhand smoke at home based on town of residence. RESULTS: Compared to changes over the same time period among smokers in towns where smoking in bars was permitted, smokers in Boston were significantly less likely to observe smoking and less likely to decrease their bar patronage after the smoking ban was implemented. Changes in support for smoke-free bars, smoking patterns at home, and exposure to secondhand smoke at home did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Expectations about noncompliance, declines in patronage, and displacement of smoking to the home as a consequence of extending smoking restrictions to bars are not supported by the data.