News and Articles on Health. Medical research topics.

In an effort to focus more directly on the population of pregnant women in Oregon and address the need for nurses and providers to screen and assist women to quit smoking, the Smoke Free Mothers and Babies Program (SFMB) was developed. The goal of the program, funded by the National Dissemination office of Smoke Free Families (at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), was to increase smoking cessation among low income and other high risk pregnant women through introducing the 5 A’s brief intervention protocol to prenatal care providers and public health nurses. This paper addresses the portion of the program that taught public health nurses how to help pregnant women stop smoking. Activities included training nurses and providing them with client materials and streamlining existing systems that allowed nurses to use the 5 A’s with greater ease.
Ten counties in Oregon were originally recruited for the project. They were culled from a total of 36 counties in Oregon, nine of which were not eligible because of their involvement in another Smoke Free Families Project or their lack of a Maternity Case Management (MCM) program. Out of the remaining 27 counties, 10 agreed to participate. During the course of the project, two counties discontinued their participation.

In agreeing to participate in the program, County Health Department Nurses providing MCM services were required to recruit pregnant women who smoked into the project and to provide additional documentation, including a project consent form, the client’s reports on smoking cessation activities by their provider during prenatal visits, and a client postpartum survey. Nurses were required to complete three surveys during the course of the project. Finally, the “Five A’s Intervention Record” (FAIR) Form was introduced, which required public health nurses to document use of the cessation interventions by checking boxes, rather than through written progress notes.

The 5 A’s
The U.S. Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guidelines (Fiore, et al., 2000) recommend the use of the 5 A’s as a brief clinical intervention for health care providers. After reviewing the results from randomized clinical trials involving the 5 A’s brief intervention, Melvin et al. (2000) recommended the 5 A’s for use in working with pregnant women who smoke. The estimated that total contact time for this procedure ranges from 5 to15 minutes, plus additional time needed to read self-help materials. Specifically, they identified the 5 A’s for pregnant women as:

Oregon’s efforts in tobacco cessation have historically focused on the general population and have depended on quit line services as the primary intervention. The Oregon Smoke Free Mothers and Babies Program (SFMB) was developed in 2002 to focus on public health nurses and prenatal care providers who work with high risk pregnant women. It seeks to increase smoking cessation among low income and other high risk pregnant women by disseminating the U.S. Public Health Service best practices, the 5 A’s (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) tobacco brief intervention protocol, to public health nurses and prenatal care providers. Interventions included teaching nurses the 5 A’s, how to use stages of change for pregnant quitters and providing them with client materials. We report the survey results gathered from nurses regarding their use of the 5 A’s. Nurses were questioned at 3 intervals: at the beginning of the SFMB project, 12 months later and 24 months later. While over 45 nurses in 10 counties were involved in the program, staff turnover and budget cuts affected program evaluation and analysis of the survey responses. As a result, only 10 nurses completed all three surveys. We found that, at baseline, all of the nurses were already performing the Ask and Advise components. The training resulted in a significant increase in the nurses using Assess (p<0.05) and Assist (p<0.05) both at 12 and 24 months. We also found that there was a statistically significant increase in the use of Arrange at 12 months (p<0.01) that was not sustained at 24 months (p=0.07). We conclude that public health nurses were already routinely doing Ask and Advise; our 5 A’s program was successful in improving Assess and Assist. More work is needed to understand why increases in Arrange were not sustained. Introduction
In Oregon, tobacco cessation activities have typically occurred through the Oregon Tobacco Quit Line focusing on a broad population base. The Quit Line was established in 1998 for all Oregonians who smoked and wanted to quit. The Quit Line provides free telephone counseling to all callers, but they do no outreach: callers must contact them for services. Specific cessation interventions, while recommended, were not routinely being conducted by providers in public health or private offices. The Oregon Office of Family Health administers a home-visiting program called Maternity Case Management (MCM) for high-risk pregnant women. The program is funded through the US Title V program and the Oregon State Medicaid Program. State rules for the MCM program required that tobacco use be assessed for every client. Those clients who smoked were considered “high-risk” and could receive additional services. However, specific methods for assessing tobacco use were not spelled out for nurses. Nurses had received little information and training regarding tobacco cessation or motivational interviewing. They were also unfamiliar with cessation resources.

Majority (60%) of the articles reviewed were not theory-backed as no theory was explicitly mentioned in the article. Few articles mentioned the usage of social learning theory, community organizing theory, transactional and systems theory of environmental change and some constructs from Transtheoretical theory. Furthermore little effort was made to document which constructs were working and to what extent. It is important that researchers make every effort to use a theory-backed approach and develop psychometrically robust instruments to measure the constructs used in intervention.

In terms of duration of the interventions, two studies were very long (four and six years) duration (Flynn et al., 1994; Pentz et al., 1989), five studies were one year duration(Chou et al., 2006; Josendal, Aaro & Bergh, 1998; Unger et al., 2004; Kentala, Utriainen, Pahkala & Mattila, 1999; Stoddard et al., 2005;), two studies were three years duration(Lirownik et al., 2000; Svoen & Schei, 1999), three studies were two years duration (Noland et al., 1998; Schofield, Lynagh, & Mishra, 2003; Vartiainen, Pallonen, Mcalister, Koslela, & Puska, 1986), three studies were for about six, seven and nine months respectively(Colby et al., 2005; Crone et al., 2003; Reddy et al., 2002). So the review suggests a mixed picture for the duration of interventions used. The various interventions used consisted of peer refusal skills, decision making skills, role-plays, poster productions, group sessions with tobacco-related subjects, increasing knowledge about smoking, teaching health hazards related to smoking and teaching necessary skills to resist smoking. two interventions were related to mass media interventions, Project STAR (1989) (Pentz et al., 1989) and one targeted to elementary school kids (Flynn et al., 1994). There were two studies which used the social influences model: one looked at the effects of the intervention on adolescents in tobacco growing region versus adolescents in non-tobacco growing region and concluded that the model had an influence on adolescents in tobacco-growing region (Noland et al., 1998). The other study (SMART study) looked at social/environmental factors, personal factors, behavioral factors, and personal factors and devised their intervention objectives based on these factors (Stoddard et al., 2005).

The settings for most of the studies were school-based (60%) with either grade specific interventions or using schools as units of randomization. There were three interesting studies where the settings differed: one was done in a worksite setting (SMART study), one done in a community dental setting (Kentala, Utriainen, Pahkala & Mattila, 1999) and one in a medical setting (Colby et al., 2005).

As for the personnel who delivered these interventions, pertaining to school-based interventions (nine studies while some had a community component too), some were carried out by teachers who were trained in conducting the programs and peer leaders after training, while some were delivered by the researchers themselves or in one study by a project team who monitored and evaluated the activities. It is seen that most of the school-based programs utilize training of teachers or older peers for delivering the program as this may be practically and fiscally better than hiring health educators to implement the interventions.

Regarding the experimental designs used, eight out of fifteen (around 54%) studies reviewed explicitly mentioned using a randomized control design while others used a comparison group for the study. This was very heartening as in health education most of the studies done are quasi experimental in nature.

In terms of quality of evaluation of the implementation, very few articles mentioned evaluation of the delivery methods as a part of process evaluation. HRIDAY intervention SMART study (phase 2 pilot study) & a community based tobacco and alcohol prevention program for migrant Hispanics made an attempt to study either the teacher or student satisfaction or implementation outcomes or adherence to intervention protocols whether met respectively.

It is this backdrop that a review based article was conceptualized. The purpose of this article is to review tobacco prevention interventions in adolescents either in the school or community setting.

Methods
In order to collect the materials for the study, a search of CINAHL, MEDLINE and ERIC databases was carried out for the time period 1985-2006. The criteria for inclusion of the studies were: (1) publication in English language, (2) publication between 1985-2006, (3) location of studies anywhere in the world, and (4) interventions involving adolescents. Exclusion criteria were publications in languages other than English and studies published prior to 1985. A total of 15 studies met the criteria.

Results
In a chronological order as shown in Table 1, all the 15 studies are listed. The North Karelia Youth Project (Vartiainen, Pallonen, Mcalister & Puska, 1986) was a two year intervention aimed at teaching children how to handle social and psychological pressures. This intervention reduced the proportion of children smoking in the intervention schools. PROJECT STAR (Pentz et al., 1989) was a longer duration (six-year program), used multiple theories, and produced a significant effect at the two-year follow-up. Mass Media interventions (Flynn et al., 1994) was a four-year intervention, produced a reduced risk of smoking, and the effect persisted for two years after intervention. The Danish Council Intervention (Svon and Schie, 1998) produced an overall reduction of 80% in the Steigen county. The Tobacco prevention program (Noland et al., 1998) was an atheoretical program which offered refusal skills and assertiveness training to students in grades seven and eight. The program was found to be effective over a period of two years. The social learning theory based prevention program (Josendal, Aaro & Holdenbergh, 1998) used brochures and freedom themes in stopping smoking in the intervention group. An interesting community dental care intervention (Kentala, Utriainen, Pahkala & Mattila, 1999) quite satisfactorily reduced smoking in the intervention group. A Hispanic Migrant program (Lirownik et al., 2000) for adolescents, which also targeted parent-child communication, helped in alcohol and tobacco prevention along with parent and child communication. Similarly a Sembrando salud migrant education program (Elder et al., 2002), used behavioral methods in reducing susceptibility to smoking and alcohol. PROJECT HRIDAY (Reddy et al., 2002) used teacher training and peer educator workshops for tobacco and alcohol prevention. An Australian secondary school health promotion program (Schofield, Lynagh, & Mishra, 2003) used community organization theory but failed to decrease smoking among the secondary students. A shorter duration intervention among first grade students with lower educational intervention (Crone et al., 2003) produced satisfactory effects in the intervention arm of students as compared to the control. A motivational intervention carried out in a medical setting (Colby et al., 2005) found higher motivation to quit smoking among adolescents at various follow-ups. SMART study (Stoddard et al., 2005) used a social influences model to increase social and behavioral skills among teenagers and the Wuhan Trial (Chou et al., 2006) used curriculum sessions among grade seven students in reducing smoking.

Discussion
The purpose of this article was to review smoking prevention interventions in adolescents carried out in various settings published between 1985-2006. Based on the review of these interventions it is evident that there is a need for more smoking prevention interventions in adolescents since there were only a total of 15 interventions that were found in a time span of 21 years. The grade range of the interventions was from primary grade, middle school to 9th and 10th grade in high school. Eight out of the 15 (about 54%) interventions were targeted towards students in Grades six to seven which makes sense as majority of the adolescents start using tobacco and smoking in age group 11-13 which corresponds to the middle school ages(CDC, 2005). There were just two interventions (Flynn et al., 1994; Crone et al., 2003) which were targeted for an age-group below 12 years of age.

Several studies have been done to identify determinants of tobacco use in adolescents. A study using population based cohorts of early adolescents, among many predictive determinants, lesser academic achievement and fewer environmental barriers most strongly predicted smoking (Carvajal & Granillo, 2006). Some of the other determinants for smoking initiation are socio-demographic factors like coming from a family of low socioeconomic status and personal factors like low self-image, low self-esteem and inadequate refusal skills (USDHHS, 2001). But it is seen that if the adolescents come from immigrant families they are less likely to smoke inspite of economic hardships. Protective factors for these adolescents are conjured to be lower rates of parental tobacco use and less exposure to peers who smoke (Georgiades, Boyle, Duku, & Racine, 2006). Interpersonal influences such as peer smoking, attitudinal and cultural influences such as academic achievement, initial liking for smoking, to find a meaning (experimenting) with smoking and intrapersonal influences like susceptibility to smoking or difficulty in quitting smoking were found to be important around the world. Other important determinant of smoking initiation in adolescents is whether its related to a particular racial and ethnic subgroup as we can direct are prevention strategies and programs in that particular sub-group. In a study conducted among nationally representative sample of adolescents aged 12-17, the prevalence of smoking ranged from 27.9% among American Indians and Alaskan Natives to 5.2% for Japanese. White and African American boys initiated smoking a few months earlier than white and African American girls (Carabello, Yee, Gfoerer, Pechacekt, & Henson, 2006). In a multivariate study conducted to test a set of hypotheses in determining the antecedents to cigarette smoking among adolescents, it was found that peer influence factor was the strongest predictor for smoking. Furthermore it was seen that the highest vulnerability for smoking was in blacks, intermediate in Hispanics and whites and lowest in Asians (Castro, Maddahian, Newcomb & Bentler, 1987). These determinants are important to acknowledge as they may guide us in developing prevention interventions in this age group of students.

There are a number of smoking prevention strategies targeted towards the youth such as school-based educational interventions, community-based interventions, advertising restrictions on tobacco use, youth access restrictions and public health education. Reviews of these approaches have shown that most of the adolescent/youth community prevention programs had mixed results (Lantz et al., 2000). The programs which emphasized a social model, along with a community-based health program were found to be somewhat effective but again a majority of this school-based and community based programs haven’t been adequately evaluated in the long-term and the impacts if at all seen are all short-term effects. This is corroborated by the first large scale randomized trial which looked at the social influences approach to smoking prevention (Flay, Koepke, Thomson, Santi, Best, & Brown, 1989). In a review of 94 randomized controlled trials, which focused on school-based prevention programs, 13 studies used social influences intervention of which nine found some positive effect of intervention on the prevalence and four failed to detect any influence (Thomas, & Perera, 2006). Similarly among study of 13 studies which compared community interventions to no interventions or controls, two reported lower smoking prevalence. Of three studies comparing community interventions to school based programs only one found differences in reported smoking prevalence (Sowden & Stead, 2003).

Tobacco use is a major public health problem in our society. Tobacco addiction begins in adolescence and majority of smokers start using tobacco in the age group between 11-13 years. There are a number of tobacco prevention strategies targeted towards the youth such as school-based educational interventions, community-based interventions, advertising restrictions on tobacco use, youth access restrictions and public health education. The purpose of this article is to review smoking prevention educational interventions in adolescents conducted either in the school or community setting. In order to collect the materials for the study, a search of CINAHL, MEDLINE and ERIC databases was conducted for the time period 1985-2006. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight out of the 15 interventions were targeted towards students in grades 6-7 which makes sense as majority of the adolescents start using tobacco in the age group 11-13 years. Nine out of 15 interventions reviewed did not use any behavioral theory. The six articles that used theory used social learning theory, community organizing theory, transactional and systems theory of environmental change and some constructs from transtheoretical model. There is need to explicitly reify behavioral theories by tobacco prevention interventions. Characteristics of the length of the intervention, personnel conducting the intervention, types of activities included in the interventions, and process evaluation results are discussed in the article. Recommendations for developing future educational interventions for preventing tobacco use in adolescents are discussed.

Tobacco use is responsible for about 430,000 deaths among adults in the United States (United States Department of Health & Human Services [USDHHS], 2001). In terms of tobacco initiation, it is observed that the use begins in adolescence and act as a gateway drug for use of other drugs later in life. Tobacco use in different forms such as cigars, cigarettes, bidis and spit-tobacco give rise to various morbid health conditions such as cancer of larynx, mouth, esophagus and lung. Also chewing tobacco gives rise to conditions like periodontitis, submucous fibrosis and tooth loss .It is generally seen that there are some sociodemographic, environmental and personal factors which put the youth at risk of using tobacco (USDHHS, 2001).

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) survey done to study priority health risk behaviors among adolescents between October 2004 and January 2006, found that 54.3% of students nation wide had ever tried cigarette smoking (life-time cigarette use), 23.0% of students had smoked cigarettes on ≥ 1 of the 30 days preceding the survey and 9.4% of students had smoked cigarettes on ≥ 20 days of the 30 days preceding the survey (current cigarette use) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2006a). It was also documented that nationwide 14.0% of the students had smoked cigars on ≥ 1 of the 30 days preceding the survey. It is seen that smoking addiction begins in adolescence and majority of smokers start using tobacco in the age group between 11-13 and about 10-15% starting after age 19 (CDC, 2006a). The Global Youth Tobacco survey begun in 1999 by the WHO (World Health Organization), the CDC, and the Canadian Public Health Association, which is a school-based survey, includes questions on prevalence of cigarette and other tobacco use in 132 different countries(CDC, 2006b). The salient findings of their study conducted between 1999 and 2005 reveals that any form of tobacco use was highest in the American and European regions (22.2% and 19.8%, respectively) and lowest in the South-East Asian and Western Pacific Region (12.9% and 11.4%, respectively). Furthermore current cigarette smoking was highest in the European and American regions (17.9% and 17.5%, respectively). Boys were significantly more likely to smoke cigarettes in South-east Asian, and Western Pacific Region (CDC, 2006b). Finally, in the Healthy People 2010 Report that documents national objectives in United States, the objective is to reduce past month tobacco use by students in grades 9 through 12 from a 1999 baseline of 40% to 21% by 2010, reduce past month cigarette use from 35% to 16%, past month spit tobacco use from 8% to 1% and past month cigar use from 18% to 8% (USDHHS, 2001).

University of California, Santa Cruz, students appear to have evolved a widespread pattern of lighter cigarette smoking. UCSC students report smoking cigarettes socially at much higher rates, smoking heavily at much lower rates, and smoking less than the whole cigarette than their parents do. The small number of parent social smokers, the large number of student social smokers, and the lack of correlation between parent smoking status and student social smoking status suggest social smoking is incubated in modern high school and college environments. Conversely, the few UCSC students most at risk for future heavy smoking have heavy-smoking parents and have progressed to daily smoking themselves.

Two questions arise: First, does students’ “social smoking” represent a new trend toward lighter, non-addictive smoking that promises to reduce cigarette consumption and health injury? Bjartveit and Tverdal (2005) find that compared to smokers of 25 or more cigarettes per day, those who smoke 1-4 cigarettes per day experienced reduced relative risks of ischemic heart disease of 20%, cancer (60%), lung cancer (90%), and mortality (50%). However, they also found that compared to nonsmokers, light daily smokers suffered significantly higher rates of lung cancer and ischemic heart disease, slightly higher rates of cancer, and higher rates of overall mortality. The dose-response effect found suggests that smoking less than daily would further reduce the hazards of smoking, though not to zero.

Second, is social smoking among college students a stable, equilibrium habit or simply the precursor to heavy daily smoking, albeit commencing at older ages than in the past? This cross-sectional study is inadequate to assess that question; in fact, it provides evidence for both views. Older UCSC students report similar rates of social smoking but higher rates of daily (including heavy daily) smoking than do younger students. However, a large majority of current UCSC social smokers report smoking less (72%) or the same amount (23%) now than in the past; only a small fraction (5%) report smoking more.
If the effects observed are largely generational, we would expect follow-up studies to find today’s UCSC 18-19 year-old social smokers are not taking up daily smoking at the levels found among today’s UCSC over-21 students. If social smoking is indeed a generational trend, it is likely to be stable and to predict much lower levels of cigarette consumption and smoking-related morbidity and mortality in the future among these student populations.

Health educators and policy makers are understandably reluctant to promote any form of tobacco use (University Health Center, 2005; Office of Health Education, 2005). Fortunately, many measures that deter smoking, such as raised taxes on tobacco and smoke-free campuses and other locales (Bratton & Trieu, 2005) may also deter addictive smoking by adding to its cost and inconvenience. Further longitudinal study of the conditions that preserve lighter social smoking as an equilibrium habit or a precursor to smoking cessation, versus the conditions that promote transition from social smoking to addictive smoking, is needed before policies to address social smoking can be refined.

While many health interests worry about persistently high rates of cigarette smoking among college students, little research has tracked qualitative changes in student habits such as “social smoking.” A survey of 670 University of California, Santa Cruz, undergraduate students ages 18-43, mean age 20.6, found 57% of the weighted sample smoked cigarettes in the past year, compared to 37% of college undergraduates nationally and 34% of UCSC students’ parents. However, two-thirds of UCSC student smokers smoke socially (less than daily), compared to 60% of student smokers nationally and 16% of parent smokers. Half of UCSC social smokers report smoking less than an entire cigarette per occasion and 70% report smoking less today than in the past; the fraction who smoke heavily tend to have parents who smoke heavily. Students’ reports indicating their social smoking is an equilibrium behavior unlikely to lead to heavier smoking need longitudinal investigation.

Concern has been expressed that college students ages 18-24 show the highest rates of cigarette smoking today, as well as lesser declines in cigarette smoking over the last 25 years, compared to younger teens and older adults. Monitoring the Future (Johnston, O’Malley & Schulenberg, 1980-2004) finds the percentage of college students one to four years beyond high school who reported smoking cigarettes in the previous year or previous month in 2004 was virtually the same as in the first survey in 1980 (Appendix A). However, bigger drops were recorded in college students’ daily smoking, especially heavier (half a pack or more) daily smoking.

Persistent high smoking rates among these young, well-educated populations together with standard assumptions about nicotine’s addictiveness create apprehensions of a future smoking revival. However, there are indications that today’s smoking among high school seniors and college students differs qualitatively from past patterns. In 1980, 51% of college students who smoked at all smoked daily and 35% smoked heavily; in 2004, just 38% and 19%, respectively (Johnston, O’Malley & Schulenberg, 1980-2005). High school and college students’ smoking, once dominated by daily use, increasingly is dominated by episodic weekend or occasional “social” use.

Students’ trend toward “social smoking” is poorly understood (Moran, Wechsler & Rigotti, 2004). Some health experts regard it as a stable behavior but argue true social smoking is rare (University Health Center, 2005), while others view it as a stage among college students who smoke cigarettes occasionally in connection with drinking alcohol and socializing (Hines, Fretz & Nollen, 1998). Others believe college students’ social smoking “may represent a stage in the uptake of smoking” (Moran, Wechsler & Rigotti, 2004, p. 1033) and “can wind up as a lifelong problem” (Office of Health Education, 2005). A California Department of Health Services anti-smoking ad declares that young “social smokers” will progress rapidly to pack-a-day smokers.

A large majority of people trying to stop find after a short period of time to resume the habit, many do not succeed, simply because the method used to help stop smoking. There is real hope for people who seriously want to stop. Apparently, many people are looking for the easy way to stop smoking or some help to stop magic.

How many times have you said to yourself or your friends or family to go to stop smoking today or tomorrow or even next week with no luck, or I’m going to participate in a smoking cessation program and never succeed. It can be hard to stop, but not impossible.

There are a few stop smoking aids that have proven effective. In recent years, acupuncture has been used, among other applications, to help people stop smoking.

There is a wide range of age for smokers of today and the widest range of reasons why smokers. Know the reasons why you want to stop is an important step fist. These are the 4 reasons why you should stop smoking.

Setting a stop date and a list of reasons for it is the starting point. There are so many different programs on the market today, what works for one may not work for another, and on the basis of reasons for wanting to stop smoking. The reasons why they started smoking are probably not around anymore.

Make a list of reasons to want to stop. The first thing to do is spend some time thinking about the reasons you want to stop. So the connection between the snuff to stop smoking and weight gain is directly related to cigarettes themselves, or are there other reasons out why this happens so often to people who “stop.”

There are plenty of smokers out there who, among other reasons, are afraid of trying to stop smoking cigarettes for fear of what they believe is inevitable weight gain. If you are a smoker, chances are you’ve tried to stop many times, or deep inside you felt you should stop for obvious reasons related to their health, but have no idea where to start. You may want to write to the top of the notebook, “Why I’m stopping smoking”.

Help stop smoking with hypnosis is to consultations and sessions with a therapist, who usually runs one of the reasons for smoking and the reasons for wanting to stop smoking. Here are five good reasons to stop smoking from the Centers for Disease Control presents to adolescent smokers. To help you stop smoking, you have to do a self-analysis of the reasons you smoke and the reasons why you want to stop.

Do not hesitate and youse any method you would like. Everything depends on you.

Those who want to learn more about e cigarette, please visit this site. Lots of info aboute cigarette and how to purchase it.

And a final piece of advice – today the web technologies give you a truly unique chance to choose exactly what you require at the best terms which are available on the market. Strange, but most of the people don’t use this chance. In real life it means that you must use all the tools of today to get the info that you need.

Search Google and other search engines. Visit social networks and have a look on the accounts that are relevant to your topic. Go to the niche forums and participate in the discussion. All this will help you to build up a true vision of this market. Thus, giving you a real chance to make a wise and nicely balanced decision.

Of all the stop smoking aids that have been marketed throughout the years, the most intriguing, and possibly most effective, is the electronic cigarette (also known as the e-cigarette or smokeless cigarette). At first glance, this device appears to be a real cigarette in size, weight, and usage. However, since it does not contain tobacco, its operation does not expose the smoker to the over 4000 toxic chemicals and 60-70 known carcinogens found in traditional cigarettes.

• Electronic Cigarettes as a Stop Smoking Aid

So, how do these “fake cigarettes” help people stop smoking? In several ways, actually. First of all, they contain a cartridge that, upon inhaling, generates the taste of a traditional tobacco cigarette. Different manufacturers offer a wide variety of flavors (tobacco, menthol, and even options like apple, strawberry, and chocolate, to name a few), and users should try out a few different brands and varieties to see which ones are the most pleasing to them personally.

If desired, smokeless cigarettes can also be used as nicotine delivery system. When choosing the cartridges to be used in your electric cigarette, you can specify a nicotine level of high, medium, low, or none. This makes the electronic cigarette a true “quit smoking cigarette,” since you can start at a higher nicotine level, and gradually reduce your nicotine intake, just like you can with other stop smoking aids such as the nicotine patch.

Next, the physical actions required in smoking electronic cigarettes are identical to those used to operate a regular cigarette, thus giving the smoker something to do with their hands. This is perhaps one of the most cited reasons for failure when attempting other quit smoking methods; nicotine gum or patches do nothing to replace the physical routines and habits involved in smoking addiction.

• E-Cigarettes Allowed Where Smoking Is Banned

Finally, since they do not emit actual smoke, the use of electric cigarettes is allowed in places traditional cigarettes have been banned: restaurants and bars, theaters, workplaces, sporting venues, cruise ships, and more. You see, e-cigarettes expel a water vapor that looks and tastes like smoke, but it virtually odorless and dissipates into the air almost immediately. This is due to the electronic cigarette’s atomization chamber, that heats up the liquid contained in the cartridge and produces a vapor that gives the user the physical sensation of smoking, but without the harsh smoke and irritation of traditional tobacco.

• Make Sure to Try Before You Buy

I’m sure you’ve noticed the multitude of brands and varieties of tobacco cigarettes on the market – there are literally hundreds to choose from, and each smoker has his or her own specific favorite. Now that smokeless cigarettes have evolved on the market, the situation is no different. Each brand and style of electric cigarette will be different from the next in ways such as taste, feel, usage, and convenience (carrying, charging, refills, etc.). That’s why many electronic cigarette manufacturers give you the opportunity to take advantage of a risk-free trial of their product before you commit to spending the $100 or so that it takes to purchase a complete kit.

For a small shipping and handling charge, usually between $2-8, you can receive an e-cigarette starter kit that contains everything you need to try the product out for yourself. You will be given a period of time, generally 10 days or so, to use the electric cigarettes at no risk, and see if you are satisfied with your choice. If you wish to keep your smokeless cigarette kit past the trial period, simply do nothing and you will be billed for the total cost of your purchase. If you are not completely happy, just follow the enclosed instructions to contact the company and return the unused portion of the product. Some companies will even allow you to extend the length of your trial period if you need a bit more time to decide.

So stick with those New Year’s resolutions and make 2010 the year you give up smoking traditional tobacco cigarettes for good!

Quit smoking today and your body will start healing tomorrow. Actually it will start within the next 20 minutes. It doesnt take longer before you can see the first signs of the healing process.

• Your blood pressure decreases and your pulse rate drops 20 minutes after your last cigarette.
• The body temperature of hands and feet will also increase.
• The carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to a normal level after 8 hours and the oxygen level in blood increases to normal.

Tomorrow at the same time, your risk of a heart attack is decreased. And the day after tomorrow your nerve endings will begin to growth again. Your will also have improved your ability to taste and smell. On day later your breathing will be easier.

The following weeks and month your will improve your circulation. Walking will be easier and your lung function will increase. The nicotine withdrawal symptom will subside after the first month, so you will be able to focus on the psychological need for a cigarette.

One year from now, your risk of coronary heart disease will only be the half as today. This is a very important thing, because in the United States smoking is directly linked to 30 % of all heart disease deaths.

It is not only the short-term benefits, which makes it worth quitting.

• The risk of a stroke has been reduced to the same as people who have never smoked after only 5 years.
• And the risk of lung cancer drops to one-half that of the smokers after 10 years.
• The risk of other cancer types will also decrease; including the risk of cancer in the throat, esophagus, kidney, mouth, and pancreas.
• The risk of coronary heart disease will be the same of people who have never smoked after 15 years.
• And in many other ways will the risk of death be at nearly the same level of people who have never smoked.

So do yourself (and your body) a favor and quit smoking today; and see your health improve. Just remember that the nicotine addiction healing process is an ongoing process. You will see some quick improvement, but other will happen more slowly.