This article determines the rates of concurrent use of nicotine and tobacco products among homeless adults who regularly smoke. It also differentiates the characteristics of concurrent users and non-concurrent users in regard to their reliance on cigarettes, awareness of smoking hazards, willingness to stop smoking, and receiving smoking cessation services. The outcome of this study intends to broaden knowledge in this field of study and achieve a clear grasp of the various components that could impact smoking cessation programs for these susceptible individuals. The fundamental concept of this study is identifying the causes why underprivileged people have an exceedingly high occurrence rate in cigarette smoking because it results in them being vulnerable to smoke-related health problems such as lung and heart diseases. They also have less opportunity to receive cessation treatments from healthcare providers due to financial constraints.
In addition, within their community, conventional concurrent tobacco product use has become popular which may have a high degree of a health risk compared to cigarette smokers that could affect their chances to stop smoking. Research methods include study flyers which were utilised and placed in six establishments within Oklahoma City where homeless people reside, in response, 396 participants were obtained. They classified themselves as daily cigarette smokers and were registered after informed consent was completed, then on a tablet computer; a self-report questionnaire was answered by the participants who were then given a $20 gift card. The authors applied descriptive statistics to identify the sample population; Chi-Square and t-tests were used to analyse the distinction among the concurrent users and non-concurrent users and the SPSS version 23 was applied for data analyses. It was revealed that concurrent user rates were 67.2% and the majority of the participants were influenced by cheap prices. The surveyed groups were opting to use concurrent tobacco and nicotine product to reduce cigarette smoking.
Concurrent users have more chance to develop smoke-related illnesses if they still continue smoking; additionally, the data also showed that concurrent users had generally more attempts to stop smoking in comparison to non-concurrent users. However, their willingness to stop smoking and low accessibility to smoking cessation treatment are similar for both concurrent users and non-concurrent users. The limitations observed in the study were that participants were selected only within Oklahoma City which signifies that it does not represent the general population. Since other cities have various costs of tobacco products, tax rates, and connection to different concurrent use products these might influence use patterns and intentions making the research findings limited. In conclusion, there is frequent concurrent usage of alternative nicotine-based products among homeless regular smoking adults who are generally seeking opportunities to receive specific smoke reduction interventions to improve their health. This article gave me important insight into how the socio-economic status of an individual or community can be a significant factor in accessing smoking cessation intervention.
The author’s objective is to analyse different components of multimedia advertising campaigns about tobacco control and how they affect the attitudes of tobacco smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES). This research could provide insights on how to enhance the campaign’s approaches and effectiveness toward the specified group. The study is based on the knowledge that a significant percentage of tobacco smokers are from low SES communities; furthermore, this group is highly exposed to smoke-related diseases which prompt them to seek smoking cessation interventions. Yet, despite their willingness to undertake treatments, they barely receive full benefit from the services due to various challenges, such as notable presence of tobacco promotions, unavailability of smoke-free regulations and facilities in working premises, personal assumptions regarding the impact of tobacco smoking, nicotine addiction, and smoking viewed as a means to handle stress.
Exposure to mass media advertising campaigns are therefore introduced to reduce tobacco prevalence among low SES smokers, however, it was not as effective as expected because of several factors like publicity and difficulty to maintain cessation interventions within the targeted population. Data processes began by accumulating 98 active smokers who represented the low SES criteria with the ages of 10 and above; moreover, from those chosen people, 8 groups were formed each having 10 to 16 participants. The focus group discussions took place in a public library in Connecticut which lasted for 2 days in September 2014. The on-site registration and screening were completed by the participants through the internet or a toll-free number which was done a week before the focus group discussions began. An expert third party facilitator on focus groups led the semi-structured discussions which lasted for 60 to 90 minutes. The entire conversations were audio-recorded and put into ATLAS.ti 6.2 (Scientific Software Development GmbH) and thematic analysis were used to examine the gathered information. It was shown that the tobacco cessation campaigns have minimal influence with the low SES smoker community; considering that promotions portrayed people and situations that were not realistic, hence, compromising the campaign’s reliability.
Participants acknowledged that tobacco cessation ads were initiated by the government; nonetheless, the institution assures that the public still smokes to strengthen its relationship with tobacco companies and steadily earning income from the business. The information presented by the cessation programs were not fully accepted and understood due to negative viewpoints and insufficient details about their interventions. In addition, factors such as smoking as a stress control mechanism, nicotine dependency, and inaccessibility of low SES smokers to cessation treatments. The limitations identified were that researchers have no particular guidelines in selecting their participants, insufficient demographic data from the study sample and results obtained were consequently irrelevant to the general low SES smoker community.
In conclusion, tobacco cessation advertising campaigns should be focusing on low SES smokers because they have a high prevalence of tobacco use. Reluctant to the information given by the program and its origin; also, stress, social norms, and dependency are hindrances on how deprived people perceived the tobacco control advertisements. Therefore, the abovementioned factors must be resolved for the cessation program to have optimum effect. This study gave me valuable information regarding the impact of tobacco cessation advertising campaigns to the underprivileged community.