Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Dec 27.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2018 Jun 23;117:88–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.06.010

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Multidimensional framework for nicotine containing products, considering (1) harmfulness, (2) appeal, and (3) dependence. Reproduced from Abrams et al., 201824 The top, back, right corner depicts the most popular (appealing), highly satisfying (dependence), and toxic space (combusted products), whereas no use at all is zero on all three axes. The bottom, front, left space depicts products that have low toxicity but little appeal or satisfaction (e.g., nicotine replacement therapies - NRTs). Minimizing risk while making a net population health impact requires products to successfully compete with and replace smoking. Thus, the sweet spot, where ANDS or NNP’s products might fall, is depicted by high appeal and satisfaction but low toxicity along with products such as Swedish-type snus, which has successfully displaced cigarettes in Sweden.