Cigarette Smoking Reduction and Health Risks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown the health benefits of cigarette smoking cessation. However, the literature remains unclear about the relationship between smoking reduction and health risks. This comprehensive review and meta-analysis updates previous reviews with the newest estimates. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between smoking reduction and some health risks in observational studies. We defined the following smoking categories: heavy smokers smoked ≥15-20 cigarettes per day (CPD), moderate smokers smoked 10-19 CPD, and light smokers smoked <10 CPD. The relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect models. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies including four case-control and 15 cohort studies. Compared with continuing heavy smokers, we found decreased lung cancer risk for those who reduced CPD by more than 50% (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.91), from heavy to moderate (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.85), and from heavy to light (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.72). We also found lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for those who reduced from heavy to light smoking (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.89) but not those who reduced by more than 50% and reduced smoking from heavy to moderate. We did not find any significant difference in all-cause mortality, all-cancer risks, and smoking-/tobacco-related cancer risk among those who reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial smoking reduction may decrease lung cancer risk but results on CVD (coronary heart disease and stroke combined) risk were mixed. The relationships between smoking reduction and other endpoints examined were not significant. IMPLICATIONS: This meta-analysis helps clarify our understanding of various smoking reduction levels on some health risks. While smoking reduction may decrease risks of lung cancer, the relationships between smoking reduction and other endpoints, including all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, remain unclear. Although smoking reduction may decrease lung cancer risks, the magnitude of lung cancer risk remain high. Among smokers, complete cessation remains the most effective approach for cancer and CVD prevention.

Evaluation of online disaster and emergency preparedness resources.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly, individuals are relying on the Internet as a major source of health information. When faced with sudden or pending disasters, people resort to the Internet in search of clear, current, and accurate instructions on how to prepare for and respond to such emergencies. Research about online health resources ascertained that information was written at the secondary education and college levels and extremely difficult for individuals with limited literacy to comprehend. This content analysis is the first to assess the reading difficulty level and format suitability of a large number of disaster and emergency preparedness Web pages intended for the general public. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) assess the readability and suitability of disaster and emergency preparedness information on the Web; and (2) determine whether the reading difficulty level and suitability of online resources differ by the type of disaster or emergency and/or Website domain. METHODS: Fifty Websites containing information on disaster and/or emergency preparedness were retrieved using the Google search engine. Readability testing was conducted on the first Web page, suggested by Google, addressing preparedness for the general public. The reading level was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) measures. The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument was used to evaluate additional factors such as graphics, layout, and cultural appropriateness. RESULTS: The mean F-K readability score of the 50 Websites was Grade 10.74 (95% CI = 9.93, 11.55). The mean FRE score was 45.74 (95% CI = 41.38, 50.10), a score considered "difficult."A Web page with content about both risk and preparedness supplies was the most difficult to read according to F-K (Grade level = 12.1). Web pages with general disaster and emergency information and preparedness supplies were considered most difficult according to the FRE (38.58, 95% CI = 30.09, 47.08). The average SAM score was 48% or 0.48 (95% CI = 0.45, 0.51), implying below average suitability of these Websites. Websites on pandemics and bioterrorism were the most difficult to read (F-K: p = 0.012; FRE: p = 0.014) and least suitable (SAM: p = 0.035) compared with other disasters and emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest the need for readily accessible preparedness resources on the Web that are easy-to-read and visually appropriate. Interdisciplinary collaborations between public health educators, risk communication specialists, and Web page creators and writers are recommended to ensure the development and dissemination of disaster and emergency resources that consider literacy abilities of the general public.

Smokeless tobacco use and circulatory disease risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Smokeless tobacco use is a public health issue throughout the world, but reviews and analyses of circulatory disease risks associated with smokeless tobacco use may be outdated or incomplete. This study provides a thorough and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of circulatory disease risks in high-income countries, including recently published study estimates. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies of circulatory disease risks associated with smokeless tobacco use in Europe and North America that were identified from electronic databases and reference lists. Study estimates were extracted by region, smokeless tobacco use status, cigarette smoking status, and circulatory condition and combined in meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess study quality and risk of bias. Results: We identified 17 relevant cohort studies, two pooled analyses, five case-control studies and one cross-sectional analysis. We found increased risk of heart disease (relative risk (RR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27) and stroke (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.62) among US smokeless tobacco users compared with non-users. Increased circulatory disease risk was not observed among Swedish smokeless tobacco users. Conclusion: US smokeless tobacco users were found to have increased risk of heart disease and stroke.