Literature DB >> 17454709

Literature review and summary of perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and marketing of potentially reduced exposure products: communication implications.

Linda L Pederson1, David E Nelson.   

Abstract

Potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs) have continued to enter the market during the 1990s and first part of the 21st century. Attempts by the tobacco industry to develop and market products with implied reductions in adverse health effects (i.e., harm reduction) are not new. Over the last half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry developed and marketed several products that purported to reduce the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes. Among these were filtered cigarettes in the 1950s and light and ultra-light cigarettes in the 1970s and 1980s. This review summarizes published and unpublished research that is directly relevant to the marketing, advertising, and communication about PREPs. The marketing strategies for these new products do not appear to differ from those used by the tobacco industry for light and ultra-light cigarettes. Although smokers report not using the new products in large numbers because of dissatisfaction with taste, they are interested in using products with reduced risk. Despite the absence of explicit health claims by the industry for PREPs, many smokers believe that these products are safer based on the advertising claims of reduced exposure and a belief that claims are approved by the government. No data are available to indicate that PREPs are useful for prevention or cessation of smoking, nor does specific research exist to suggest what health communication messages will provide smokers with accurate information about these products.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17454709     DOI: 10.1080/14622200701239548

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  21 in total

1.  Delivery of nicotine in an extract of a smokeless tobacco product reduces its reinforcement-attenuating and discriminative stimulus effects in rats.

Authors:  Andrew C Harris; Irina Stepanov; Paul R Pentel; Mark G Lesage
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic "cigarettes": nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects.

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

3.  Food and Drug Administration tobacco regulation and product judgments.

Authors:  Annette R Kaufman; Lila J Finney Rutten; Mark Parascandola; Kelly D Blake; Erik M Augustson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Motivating the unmotivated for health behavior change: a randomized trial of cessation induction for smokers.

Authors:  Matthew J Carpenter; Anthony J Alberg; Kevin M Gray; Michael E Saladin
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  A pilot randomized study of smokeless tobacco use among smokers not interested in quitting: changes in smoking behavior and readiness to quit.

Authors:  Matthew J Carpenter; Kevin M Gray
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Do we believe the tobacco industry lied to us? Association with smoking behavior in a military population.

Authors:  Robert C Klesges; Deborah A Sherrill-Mittleman; Margaret Debon; G Wayne Talcott; Robert J Vanecek
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2009-06-15

7.  Using eye-tracking to examine how embedding risk corrective statements improves cigarette risk beliefs: Implications for tobacco regulatory policy.

Authors:  Kirsten Lochbuehler; Kathy Z Tang; Valentina Souprountchouk; Dana Campetti; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski; Andrew A Strasser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 8.  Postmarketing surveillance for "modified-risk" tobacco products.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 9.  Surveillance methods for identifying, characterizing, and monitoring tobacco products: potential reduced exposure products as an example.

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

Review 10.  Assessing consumer responses to potential reduced-exposure tobacco products: a review of tobacco industry and independent research methods.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.