OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing corrective health information can reduce the tendency of consumers to believe that the implied marketing message that two "potentially reduced exposure products" (PREPs) are safer than regular cigarettes. DESIGN: Face-to-face interviews with smokers assigned to one of four conditions, which varied in terms of the presence or absence of health information that qualified claims made in advertising for two PREPs. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of 177 smokers in Boston area. INTERVENTIONS: Health information detailed the extent to which exposure to toxins and health risks of the brands were unknown. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' assessments of the health risks and toxicity of the two combustible PREPs, Advance and Eclipse. RESULTS: The health information had a modest but significant effect on ratings of health risk, and reduced perceptions that switching to the new brands would lower a smoker's risk of cancer (OR 0.75; p<0.05). The health information had no effect on perceptions of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: A small dose of corrective information was effective in tempering smokers' perceptions. A higher dose of public health campaigns would be needed to affect misperceptions likely to follow a full-scale tobacco marketing effort.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing corrective health information can reduce the tendency of consumers to believe that the implied marketing message that two "potentially reduced exposure products" (PREPs) are safer than regular cigarettes. DESIGN: Face-to-face interviews with smokers assigned to one of four conditions, which varied in terms of the presence or absence of health information that qualified claims made in advertising for two PREPs. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of 177 smokers in Boston area. INTERVENTIONS: Health information detailed the extent to which exposure to toxins and health risks of the brands were unknown. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' assessments of the health risks and toxicity of the two combustible PREPs, Advance and Eclipse. RESULTS: The health information had a modest but significant effect on ratings of health risk, and reduced perceptions that switching to the new brands would lower a smoker's risk of cancer (OR 0.75; p<0.05). The health information had no effect on perceptions of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: A small dose of corrective information was effective in tempering smokers' perceptions. A higher dose of public health campaigns would be needed to affect misperceptions likely to follow a full-scale tobacco marketing effort.
Authors: S Shiffman; S L Burton; J L Pillitteri; J G Gitchell; M E Di Marino; C T Sweeney; P A Wardle; G L Koehler Journal: Tob Control Date: 2001 Impact factor: 7.552
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
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Amanda L Johnson; Sarah E Johnson; Cassandra A Stanton; Andrea C Villanti; Raymond S Niaura; Allison M Glasser; Baoguang Wang; David B Abrams; K Michael Cummings; Andrew Hyland Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Nina A Cooperman; Kimber P Richter; Steven L Bernstein; Marc L Steinberg; Jill M Williams Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 2.164
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