e., it was no longer significant after adjustment for smoking-related beliefs and behavior in Model 3). In the fully adjusted model, the only significant associations with interest in trying smokeless products were being M��ori selleck bio and having concerns about the current or future impact of smoking on health and quality of life (Model 4). Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of ��interest among smokers in trying smokeless tobacco products�� by sociodemographic and other characteristics (all results weighted and adjusted for the complex design) Discussion These results suggest that NZ smokers are poorly informed about the lower health hazard posed by smokeless tobacco compared with cigarettes. Indeed, only 7% considered such products to be a lot less harmful, which appears to be the scientific consensus view (Levy et al.

, 2004). That smokers are poorly informed on this relative hazard has also been reported in Norway (Overland, Hetland, & Aaro, 2008) and in Sweden (Ramstrom & Wikmans, 2008), where use of such products is common (Foulds et al., 2003). Another ITC Project study (in four countries) found that only 13% of smokers (of those aware of smokeless products) considered smokeless tobacco less hazardous than cigarettes (O’Connor et al., 2007). Nevertheless, a new finding in this study that has not yet been reported is the degree of interest of smokers in trying such products. That is, one third of the NZ smokers said that they would be interested in trying such products (if proven less harmful). This suggests that these products may have a role as part of a tobacco epidemic endgame option (i.

e., one that encouraged switching from smoked products and that eventually made smoked tobacco sales illegal), assuming that such interest translated into actual behavior if the products were available and they were priced according to their relative harm (e.g., by a lower tax level). There were groups who expressed relatively more interest in trying smokeless products, that is, M��ori, those with particular concerns about the future impact of smoking on their health and quality of life, and those reporting one form of financial stress (albeit in one model). It is possible that the latter two variables relate to interest in smokeless as a way to quit or to cut down consumption.

Other work using this particular measure of financial stress ��not spending on household essentials�� found it to be associated with quitting intention but not with self-efficacy of quitting or with quitting outcomes (Siahpush et al., 2007). But for the other measure of such stress (not being able to pay important bills on time), which has also been associated with Anacetrapib quitting intention (Siahpush et al., 2009), we found no association with interest in trying smokeless products in the multivariate analysis.