Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42328264›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Closing the Harm Reduction Gap: EMPOWERing People Who Smoke.

Lindsay Reese, Marina A Murphy, Kim Murray

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lindsay ReeseScientific Affairs, HAYPP Group, Stockholm, SWE.
Marina A MurphyScientific Affairs, HAYPP Group, Milton Keynes, GBR.
Kim MurrayTobacco Harm Reduction, MN Smoke Free Alliance, Brainerd, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global tobacco control efforts, influenced substantially by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the MPOWER package, have lowered smoking prevalence in some populations but have failed to address the lived realities of the people who continue to smoke. These individuals increasingly come from communities marked by socioeconomic disadvantage, lower educational attainment, and limited access to healthcare, contexts where structural constraints, chronic stress, and reduced opportunity shape tobacco use far more powerfully than individual "choice." Yet tobacco control frameworks continue to prioritize abstinence-only strategies, punitive measures, and restrictive regulatory environments that rarely reflect the perspectives or needs of the people most affected. Countries are praised for adopting increasingly restrictive policies, with little attention given to the actual reductions in smoking rates. This editorial argues that further decreases in smoking rates can be achieved if the focus shifts from moralizing nicotine use in any form to empowering people who smoke with practical, science-based harm reduction tools. Noncombustible nicotine products that reduce toxicant exposure are often dismissed or prohibited despite growing evidence of their value for people unlikely to achieve abstinence. This disconnect widens health inequities and alienates those currently navigating stigma, misinformation, and limited cessation support. We propose a real-world EMPOWER framework that integrates evidence, pragmatism, risk-proportionate regulation, and person-centered communication. To reduce smoking-related harm more effectively, policy must move beyond ideology and prioritize autonomy, equity, and practical harm reduction.

Indexed as

health equityhealth policynicotinepatient-centered carepublic policyrisk reduction behaviorsmoking

Identifiers

PMID42328264
PMCPMC13278388

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.