The aim of the study was to examine how social care beneficiaries rate the relative harmfulness of tobacco/nicotine-containing products compared to traditional cigarettes. This information is crucial for the development of effective tobacco control strategies targeting disadvantaged populations. The cross-sectional study covered 1817 respondents who were taking advantage of social aid services offered by the local social care institutions in the Piotrkowski district, via face-to-face interviews. The linear regression analysis indicated that relative to women, men consider slim cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes to be more harmful than traditional cigarettes (p < 0.05). The smokers of traditional cigarettes reported menthol cigarettes to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, relative to the non-smokers (p = 0.05). The current results demonstrate that social care beneficiaries are not aware of the fact that some products are less harmful than others. Education concerning tobacco/nicotine products should include advice on how to reduce the adverse health effects of smoking (e.g., avoiding inhalation of combusted products), while driving the awareness that no nicotine-containing products are safe.

The goal of this cross-sectional survey was to assess the level of knowledge on harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure and active smoking among socially-disadvantaged people in Poland. The study was conducted among 1817 respondents aged 18–59 years, who used aid services from local social care institutions in Piotrkowski district. Majority of the participants were aware of the fact that smoking may cause serious diseases and lung cancer (92%). However, those percentages were lower for awareness of ETS and health risk (69.4%) and for awareness of smoking/ETS-associated risk of stroke and heart attack (57%, 68%). The male respondents and smokers had much higher odds of lacking knowledge that smoking causes serious diseases and lung cancer compared to the females (OR = 1.47 and OR = 1.86; p < 0.05) and non-smokers (OR = 2.35 and OR = 2.31; p < 0.001). In addition, those with temporary jobs and the unemployed had a higher risk of lack of knowledge on smoking and lung cancer risk (OR = 2.14 and OR = 1.66; p < 0.05) as well as ETS and the risk of stroke (OR = 1.52 and OR = 1.51; p < 0.05) as compared to those with permanent jobs. The smokers who were aware of four health consequences of smoking indicated an intention to quit smoking within the next month more frequently when compared to those who did not have the knowledge on all of the analyzed harmful effects of tobacco use (19.7% vs. 13.1%; p < 0.05). There is a need to improve knowledge on the dangers associated with active and passive smoking among socially disadvantaged populations.

The aim of the current study was to assess the perceived treatment effectiveness and beliefs with respect to the best advisor who could conduct smoking cessation treatment or counseling among socially disadvantaged light and heavy smokers. This could be crucial for implementation of a successful smoking cessation intervention among this vulnerable population. Material and Methods: The current assessments were based on the data collected during the second wave of a cross-sectional study performed in the Piotrkowski District among 1668 adults aged 18-59, entitled to social aid from welfare institutions. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to collect the relevant data. Results: The current daily smoking status was declared by 31% of the participants. About 23% of the study sample (74% of daily smokers) admitted to being heavy smokers with a meaningful difference between men and women (p < 0.05). About 29% of the daily smokers indicated that medications/pharmacotherapy could be a good method for giving up the habit. Fifteen percent of the participants shared the opinion that a smoking cessation specialist is the best advisor for counseling, and only about 7% would choose a general practitioner or pharmacist, and even fewer a nurse, as a person who could provide help to smokers. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the evaluated perceptions between the light and heavy smokers (p > 0.05). Conclusions: A high share of heavy smokers among socially disadvantaged people, and their perception that medications/pharmacotherapy would be a good solution to quit smoking, underline the need for stronger support for this method, including relevant financing resources and training. However, this method should be applied along with behavioral counseling.