g., boosted sampling of M��ori, Pacific peoples, and Asians in the NZHS) and nonresponse for the NZHS and ITC Project. A full description of the weighting process is detailed in an online report (Clark, 2008). Univariate analysis of the key socioeconomic and smoking variables was initially conducted, and we also carried out a multivariate table 5 logistic regression analysis. The latter used a conceptual framework, which assumed that there would be hierarchical relationships between demographic and sociodemographic factors (Victora, Huttly, Fuchs, & Olinto, 1997), that would dominate over smoking-related behaviors and beliefs. All models included age, gender, and ethnicity, and Models 2�C4 included key sociodemographic variables (e.g., SES, financial stress).

Model 3 added in key smoking-related beliefs and behavior, and Model 4 considered each SES variable on its own. Nevertheless, given the novelty of smokeless products for NZ smokers (since such products have no market presence), we did not include perceptions of smokeless product harmfulness in the multivariate model. All analyses were conducted in Stata (version 10; Stata-Corp, College Station, TX), and all the presented results were weighted and adjusted for the complex sample design of the NZHS to make the sample representative of all NZ smokers. Results The results indicate that knowledge of the relative health impacts of smokeless tobacco was relatively poor, with only 15.7% (95% CI = 13.0�C18.5) regarding such products as either ��a little less�� or ��a lot less�� harmful than ordinary cigarettes (8.1% and 7.

2%, respectively). A similar proportion (15.9%) had never heard of smokeless tobacco products. When participants were asked to assume that these products were much less harmful than cigarettes, 34.8% of smokers stated that they would be interested in trying these products, with another 11.1% saying ��maybe�� or ��don’t know�� (Table 1). In the univariate analysis, the proportion expressing interest was higher in each ethnic group compared with Europeans but was statistically significant only for M��ori (40.2% vs. 32.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.16�C2.16). While there was no significant association between two different deprivation measures and one measure of financial stress, those reporting having spent money on cigarettes ��that you knew would be better spent on household essentials like food�� were also more interested in trying smokeless products than the other respondents (OR = 1.

58, 95% CI = 1.12�C2.23). Associations with interest in trying Carfilzomib smokeless tobacco products were considered further in multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 2). This found that M��ori remained significantly more interested in trying smokeless products in all three models (e.g., adjusted OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.23�C2.37 in Model 1).