Reconsidering the Term “Smoker” in Clinical Settings - A survey of doctors in clinical practice

Clicks: 1
ID: 319602
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #115 of 121 articles by views in nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the society for research on nicotine and tobacco

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 121 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction An ongoing debate among tobacco researchers suggests moving away from the term "smoker" due to its lack of uniformity of use, imprecision regarding substance and quantity, and association with stigma. While academic discourse advocates for person-first language ("people who smoke") and standardised terminology, there is limited data on how doctors perceive and utilize these terms. Methods An online survey was distributed to a renal medicine department in March 2025. In total, 37 out of 60 (62%) doctors responded to the survey. The survey explored current language use, assumptions about what constitutes "smoking," perceptions of bias regarding the term "smoker," and views on the importance of standardised language. Results Most respondents (92%) primarily use "smoker" with minimal person-first language adoption. Significant inconsistencies exist in recording smoking history. Doctors often assume filtered cigarettes when "smoker" is used yet readily apply the term to shisha or cannabis users. There was little consensus on correct labelling of less common smoking methods such as shisha, cigars and vapes. Opinions on the inherent bias of "smoker" were split, but indirect questioning suggested some recognition of negative stereotypes. A consensus favoured standardising smoking-related language. Conclusions There is a notable incongruence between academic recommendations for person-first language and current clinical practice. The lack of standardised, precise terminology for smoking status poses risks for miscommunication, inconsistent patient care, and potential bias, highlighting a need for consistent, descriptive documentation.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167287866 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors J Turner, Charles J. Ferro, Georgina Jarrett
Journal nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the society for research on nicotine and tobacco
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ntr/ntag149
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntag149
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.