Are mature smokers misinformed?

While there are many reasons to continue to smoke in spite of its consequences for health, the concern that many smoke because they misperceive the risks of smoking remains a focus of public discussion and motivates tobacco control policies and litigation. In this paper we investigate the relative accuracy of mature smokers' risk perceptions about future survival, and a range of morbidities and disabilities. Using data from the survey on smoking (SOS) conducted for this research, we compare subjective beliefs elicited from the SOS with corresponding individual-specific objective probabilities estimated from the health and retirement study. Overall, consumers in the age group studied, 50-70, are not overly optimistic in their perceptions of health risk. If anything, smokers tend to be relatively pessimistic about these risks. The finding that smokers are either well informed or pessimistic regarding a broad range of health risks suggests that these beliefs are not pivotal in the decision to continue smoking. Although statements by the tobacco companies may have been misleading and thus encouraged some to start smoking, we find no evidence that systematic misinformation about the health consequences of smoking inhibits quitting.

If smoking increases absences, does quitting reduce them?

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of smoking, quitting, and time since quit on absences from work. METHODS: Data from the nationally representative Tobacco Use Supplements of the 1992/93, 1995/96, and 1998/99 Current Population Surveys were used. The study included full time workers aged between 18-64 years, yielding a sample size of 383 778 workers. A binary indicator of absence due to sickness in the last week was analysed as a function of smoking status including time since quit for former smokers. Extensive demographic variables were included as controls in all models. RESULTS: In initial comparisons between current and former smokers, smoking increased absences, but quitting did not reduce them. However, when length of time since quit was examined, it was discovered that those who quit within the last year, and especially the last three months, had a much greater probability of absences than did current smokers. As the time since quitting increased, absences returned to a rate somewhere between that of never and current smokers. Interactions between health and smoking status significantly improved the fit of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers who quit reduced their absences over time but increase their absences immediately after quitting. Quitting ill may account for some but not all of this short run impact.

Reduction of quantity smoked predicts future cessation among older smokers.

AIM: To examine whether smokers who reduce their quantity of cigarettes smoked between two periods are more or less likely to quit subsequently. STUDY DESIGN: Data come from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of older Americans aged 51-61 in 1991 followed every 2 years from 1992 to 1998. The 2064 participants smoking at baseline and the first follow-up comprise the main sample. MEASUREMENTS: Smoking cessation by 1996 is examined as the primary outcome. A secondary outcome is relapse by 1998. Spontaneous changes in smoking quantity between the first two waves make up the key predictor variables. Control variables include gender, age, education, race, marital status, alcohol use, psychiatric problems, acute or chronic health problems and smoking quantity. FINDINGS: Large (over 50%) and even moderate (25-50%) reductions in quantity smoked between 1992 and 1994 predict prospectively increased likelihood of cessation in 1996 compared to no change in quantity (OR 2.96, P<0.001 and OR 1.61, P<0.01, respectively). Additionally, those who reduced and then quit were somewhat less likely to relapse by 1998 than those who did not reduce in the 2 years prior to quitting. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing successfully the quantity of cigarettes smoked appears to have a beneficial effect on future cessation likelihood, even after controlling for initial smoking level and other variables known to impact smoking cessation. These results indicate that the harm reduction strategy of reduced smoking warrants further study.

HPV16 antibodies as risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer and their association with tumor HPV and smoking status.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies (Abs) to the HPV16 proteome increase risk for HPV-associated OPC (HPVOPC). The goal of this study was to investigate the association of a panel of HPV16 Abs with risk for OPC as well as the association of these Abs with tumor HPV and smoking status among patients with OPC. METHODS: IgG Abs to the HPV16 antigens E1, E2, E4, E5, E6, E7, L1, L2 were quantified using a programmable ELISA assay. Sera were obtained from 258 OPC patients at diagnosis and 250 healthy controls. HPV16 tumor status was measured by PCR for 137 cases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for the association of HPV16 Abs with risk for OPC. RESULTS: HPV16 E1, E2, E4, E5, E6, E7 and L1-specific IgG levels were elevated in OPC patients compared to healthy controls (p<0.05). After multivariable adjustment, Ab positivity for NE2, CE2, E6, and/or E7 was associated with OPC risk (OR [95% CI], 249.1 [99.3-624.9]). Among patients with OPC, Ab positivity for these antigens was associated with tumor HPV status, especially among never or light smokers (OR [95% CI], 6.5 [2.1-20.1] and OR [95% CI], 17.5 [4.0-77.2], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Antibodies to HPV16 proteins are associated with increased risk for HPVOPC. Among patients with OPC, HPV16 Abs are associated with tumor HPV status, in particular among HPV positive patients with no or little smoking history.