Skip Navigation


Nicotine & Tobacco Research Advance Access originally published online on February 20, 2009
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009 11(2):111-121; doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp010
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Article Summary
Right arrow Article Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/2/111    most recent
ntp010v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Husten, C. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Husten, C. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

How should we define light or intermittent smoking? Does it matter?

Corinne G. Husten

Corinne G. Husten, M.D., M.P.H., Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

Corresponding Author: Corinne G. Husten, M.D., M.P.H., Interim President, Partnership for Prevention, 1015 18th Street, Northwest, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, USA. Telephone: 202-833-0009. Fax: 202-833-0113. Email: chusten@prevent.org

Received: December 28, 2007; Accepted: May 9, 2008
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
Multiple terms for light and intermittent smokers (LITS), each with a range of definitions, are found in the literature. Because of this wide range of terms and definitions, there has been interest in developing a standard definition of LITS. However, several factors need to be taken into account in setting such a definition.

In the literature, levels of cigarette consumption often serve as a proxy measure for toxin exposure, level of addiction, or level of disease risk. However, for a variety of reasons, consumption may not be a good surrogate for these predictor and outcome measures. Some of these reasons include: differences in tobacco products that may affect exposure, changes in understanding about the levels of tobacco use that sustain addiction, how closely consumption measured as cigarettes smoked per day correlates with other markers of exposure, the effect of compensation (changes in smoking behavior to adjust for changes in nicotine . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   What terms are used to describe LITS in the literature, and how has each term been defined?
 

   What are the most valid LITS categories based on the stability of the various levels of consumption over time?
 

   Is cigarette consumption a valid measure of exposure to toxins?
 

   Is cigarette consumption a valid measure of addiction?
 

   Is cigarette consumption a valid measure of disease risk?
 

   Is cigarette consumption a valid measure of program impact?
 

   What are the implications of polytobacco use for using cigarette consumption as a proxy for exposure, addiction, or disease risk?
 

   Are there better measures than cigarette consumption (as defined by cigarettes per day) for exposure, levels of addiction, and/or disease risk?
 

   Should we continue to use categories of cigarette consumption (cigarettes per day) as a predictive or outcome measure?
 

   Funding
 

   Declaration of Interests
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?