Cited by 104Smoking Behavior and CessationPublic Health Policies and EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Decreasing smoking but increasing stigma? Anti-tobacco campaigns, public health, and Cancer care

Open access
Kristen E. Riley, Michael R. Ulrich, Heidi A. Hamann, Jamie S. Ostroff·2017·AMA Journal of Ethics

Abstract

Public health researchers, mental health clinicians, philosophers, and medical ethicists have questioned whether the public health benefits of large-scale anti-tobacco campaigns are justified in light of the potential for exacerbating stigma toward patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Although there is strong evidence for the public health benefits of anti-tobacco campaigns, there is a growing appreciation for the need to better attend to the unintended consequence of lung cancer stigma. We argue that there is an ethical burden for creators of public health campaigns to consider lung cancer stigma in the development and dissemination of hard-hitting anti-tobacco campaigns. We also contend that health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to try to mitigate stigmatizing messages of public health campaigns with empathic patient-clinician communication during clinical encounters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.5.msoc1-1705

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The trial faces four main challenges-recruitment, app engagement, outcome data retention, and remote biochemical verification-primarily because participants are in active cancer treatment.

    “There are four main challenges of this trial, all of which are primarily due to the challenges of study participants being in active cancer treatment (i.e., multiple treatments and appointments, shame about being a smoker with cancer, fatigue from cancer and treatment, fatalism about the benefits of quitting):29–32,73 (1) trial recruitment; (2) app intervention engagement, (3) outcome data reten”

    From Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The sections “Do Hard-Hitting Anti-Tobacco Ad Campaigns Contribute to Stigma?” and “What Should be Done?” discuss stigma, shame, and guilt among patients with lung cancer. They do not identify four challenges in this trial or establish that active cancer treatment primarily causes its recruitment, app-engagement, outcome-retention, and remote-verification difficulties. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Mickle T Antitobacco Groups Sue FDA to Require Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs Wall Street Journal 10 4 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riley, K. E., Ulrich, M. R., Hamann, H. A., & Ostroff, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Venue
AMA Journal of Ethics
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
475-485
ISSN
  • 1937-7010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-6980
OpenAlex
W2613943031
Cited by
104
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7
FWCI
6.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The AMA Journal of Ethic (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Lung Cancer Partnership
  • Lung Cancer Research Foundation
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (T32CA009461)
  • National Cancer Institute (R03CA193986, R03CA154016, P30CA008748, T32CA009461)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
anti-smoking campaigns, public health ethics, patient-clinician communication, empathic communication, tobacco control, health care ethics
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Advertising, Health Promotion, Humans, Neoplasms, Smoking, Nicotiana, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review