INTRODUCTION: Several noncombusted oral tobacco products have been introduced that are primarily marketed to cigarette smokers. An important component of evaluating these products involves assessment of subjective responses to the product. To date, few studies have been undertaken to examine the validity of subjective response questionnaires for oral tobacco products. The goal of this study is to examine the extent subjective responses to a product are related to product preference and extent of product use. METHODS: Data from a study examining oral tobacco product preference were used. Smokers were asked to sample a variety of oral tobacco products that differed in formulation (snus versus dissolvables) and dose of nicotine. At the end of the sampling period, subjects were asked to choose the product that they would use to completely substitute for cigarettes for the next 2 weeks. During the sampling period, subjects completed a Product Evaluation Scale (PES) that describes subjective responses to the product. During the treatment phase, they kept record of amount of product use. RESULTS: Subjective responses to the product on the PES were related to product choice and to some extent, the amount of product use. Product choice was associated with different characteristics of the product and smoker needs. CONCLUSION: The PES may be a useful tool for the evaluation or oral tobacco products.
INTRODUCTION: Several noncombusted oral tobacco products have been introduced that are primarily marketed to cigarette smokers. An important component of evaluating these products involves assessment of subjective responses to the product. To date, few studies have been undertaken to examine the validity of subjective response questionnaires for oral tobacco products. The goal of this study is to examine the extent subjective responses to a product are related to product preference and extent of product use. METHODS: Data from a study examining oral tobacco product preference were used. Smokers were asked to sample a variety of oral tobacco products that differed in formulation (snus versus dissolvables) and dose of nicotine. At the end of the sampling period, subjects were asked to choose the product that they would use to completely substitute for cigarettes for the next 2 weeks. During the sampling period, subjects completed a Product Evaluation Scale (PES) that describes subjective responses to the product. During the treatment phase, they kept record of amount of product use. RESULTS: Subjective responses to the product on the PES were related to product choice and to some extent, the amount of product use. Product choice was associated with different characteristics of the product and smoker needs. CONCLUSION: The PES may be a useful tool for the evaluation or oral tobacco products.
Authors: Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew G Bushmakin; Christine L Baker; Elizabeth Merikle; Abayomi O Olufade; David G Gilbert Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Michael Kotlyar; Louise A Hertsgaard; Bruce R Lindgren; Joni A Jensen; Steven G Carmella; Irina Stepanov; Sharon E Murphy; Stephen S Hecht; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M Irene Mendoza-Baumgart; Ozlem E Tulunay; Stephen S Hecht; Yan Zhang; Sharon Murphy; Chap Le; Joni Jensen; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Kaila J Norton; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Martin C Mahoney; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2011-01-10
Authors: George A Buzzell; Babita Das; Raul Cruz-Cano; Lizette E Nkongho; Azieb W Kidanu; Hyoshin Kim; Pamela I Clark; Craig G McDonald Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Natalie Voos; Danielle Smith; Lisa Kaiser; Martin C Mahoney; Clara M Bradizza; Lynn T Kozlowski; Neal L Benowitz; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Natalie Voos; Lisa Kaiser; Martin C Mahoney; Clara M Bradizza; Lynn T Kozlowski; Neal L Benowitz; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mari S Gades; Ashley Petersen; Ellen Meier; Bruce R Lindgren; Richard J O'Connor; Peter G Shields; Dorothy Hatsukami Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cecilia L Bergeria; Sarah H Heil; Danielle R Davis; Joanna M Streck; Stacey C Sigmon; Janice Y Bunn; Jennifer W Tidey; Chris A Arger; Derek D Reed; Thomas Gallagher; John R Hughes; Diann E Gaalema; Maxine L Stitzer; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Christopher A Arger; Sarah H Heil; Stacey C Sigmon; Jennifer W Tidey; Maxine L Stitzer; Diann E Gaalema; Hanna J Durand; Janice Y Bunn; Elizabeth K Ruggieri; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Bryan W Heckman; Amy E Wahlquist; K Michael Cummings; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; R I Vogel; Herb H Severson; Joni A Jensen; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 4.244