R S Caraballo1, L L Pederson, N Gupta. 1. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, USA. rfc8@cdc.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information about smokers who tried potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs) (Eclipse, Omni, Advance Lights, Accord, or Ariva), why they tried them, if they liked these products, and if they will continue to use them. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this qualitative study were to understand: (1) how smokers who tried PREPs learned about them, (2) reasons for first trying PREPs, (3) which PREP(s) they tried, (4) what they thought of the product at first trial, (5) reasons for continuing or discontinuing use, and (6) whether they would recommend PREPs to others. DESIGN: In October 2002, 16 focus group sessions were conducted with current cigarette smokers aged 30-50 years: eight groups in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and eight in Dallas, Texas. Specific focus groups were composed of white men, white women, African American men, African American women, Hispanic men, or Hispanic women. RESULTS: The majority of the participants learned about PREPs through advertising or promotion, family, friends, and co-workers; major reasons given for first trying PREPs were that the products were free or inexpensive, they wanted to stop smoking, they believed the product claims of fewer health risks, or they were curious; most of them tried Eclipse probably because the focus groups were conducted in the same cities where Eclipse was introduced; most participants did not like PREPs; most discontinued the use of PREPS, some who continued to use them did so infrequently and also kept smoking their regular brands of cigarettes; and most would not recommend PREPs, although a few might recommend them to specific groups (for example, new smokers, the young, women, curious or health conscious people). CONCLUSIONS: Although most established smokers did not like the PREPs they tried and will not recommend them to anyone, a minority of established smokers believe that there may be a market for these products.
BACKGROUND: There is little information about smokers who tried potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs) (Eclipse, Omni, Advance Lights, Accord, or Ariva), why they tried them, if they liked these products, and if they will continue to use them. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this qualitative study were to understand: (1) how smokers who tried PREPs learned about them, (2) reasons for first trying PREPs, (3) which PREP(s) they tried, (4) what they thought of the product at first trial, (5) reasons for continuing or discontinuing use, and (6) whether they would recommend PREPs to others. DESIGN: In October 2002, 16 focus group sessions were conducted with current cigarette smokers aged 30-50 years: eight groups in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and eight in Dallas, Texas. Specific focus groups were composed of white men, white women, African American men, African American women, Hispanic men, or Hispanic women. RESULTS: The majority of the participants learned about PREPs through advertising or promotion, family, friends, and co-workers; major reasons given for first trying PREPs were that the products were free or inexpensive, they wanted to stop smoking, they believed the product claims of fewer health risks, or they were curious; most of them tried Eclipse probably because the focus groups were conducted in the same cities where Eclipse was introduced; most participants did not like PREPs; most discontinued the use of PREPS, some who continued to use them did so infrequently and also kept smoking their regular brands of cigarettes; and most would not recommend PREPs, although a few might recommend them to specific groups (for example, new smokers, the young, women, curious or health conscious people). CONCLUSIONS: Although most established smokers did not like the PREPs they tried and will not recommend them to anyone, a minority of established smokers believe that there may be a market for these products.
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Andrew Hyland; Gary A Giovino; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: J L Pauly; H J Lee; E L Hurley; K M Cummings; J D Lesses; R J Streck Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrea R Vansickel; Caroline O Cobb; Michael F Weaver; Thomas E Eissenberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alexa A Lopez; Marzena Hiler; Sarah Maloney; Thomas Eissenberg; Alison B Breland Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Vaughan W Rees; Gregory N Connolly; Kaila J Norton; David Sweanor; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Vaughan W Rees; Jennifer M Kreslake; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Mark Parascandola; Peter G Shields; Gregory N Connolly Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer M Kreslake; Geoffrey Ferris Wayne; Hillel R Alpert; Howard K Koh; Gregory N Connolly Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen Bogen; Lois Biener; Catherine A Garrett; Jane Allen; K Michael Cummings; Anne Hartman; Stephen Marcus; Ann McNeill; Richard J O'Connor; Mark Parascandola; Linda Pederson Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2009-10-19