Matthew C Rousu1, Richard J O'Connor2, James F Thrasher3, Kristie M June2, Maansi Bansal-Travers2, James Pitcavage4. 1. Department of Economics, Susquehanna University, 514 University Avenue, Selinsgrove, PA 17870-1025, USA. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo NY 14263. 3. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; Centro de Investigaciones en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Cuernavaca, Mexico. 4. Center for Health Research, Geisinger Health System, Danville PA, 17822; Department of Health Policy & Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological and toxicological evidence suggests lower risk of smokeless tobacco (ST) products compared to cigarettes. Less is known, however, about consumer perceptions and use of novel forms of ST, including snus and dissolvable tobacco. METHODS: In this study, we conducted in-person experimental auctions in Buffalo, NY, Columbia, SC, and Selinsgrove, PA with 571 smokers to test the impact of information and product trials on smokers' preferences. Auctions were conducted between November 2010-November 2011. RESULTS: We found no evidence of an impact of product trials on demand in our auctions. Anti-ST information increased demand for cigarettes when presented alone, but when presented with pro-ST information it decreased demand for cigarettes. It did not decrease demand for ST products. Anti-smoking information increased demand for ST products, but did not affect cigarette demand. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that credible and effective communications about tobacco harm reduction should reinforce the negative effects of smoking.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological and toxicological evidence suggests lower risk of smokeless tobacco (ST) products compared to cigarettes. Less is known, however, about consumer perceptions and use of novel forms of ST, including snus and dissolvable tobacco. METHODS: In this study, we conducted in-person experimental auctions in Buffalo, NY, Columbia, SC, and Selinsgrove, PA with 571 smokers to test the impact of information and product trials on smokers' preferences. Auctions were conducted between November 2010-November 2011. RESULTS: We found no evidence of an impact of product trials on demand in our auctions. Anti-ST information increased demand for cigarettes when presented alone, but when presented with pro-ST information it decreased demand for cigarettes. It did not decrease demand for ST products. Anti-smoking information increased demand for ST products, but did not affect cigarette demand. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that credible and effective communications about tobacco harm reduction should reinforce the negative effects of smoking.
Authors: David T Levy; Elizabeth A Mumford; K Michael Cummings; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Gary A Giovino; Andrew Hyland; David Sweanor; Kenneth E Warner; Christine Compton Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: David T Levy; Elizabeth A Mumford; K Michael Cummings; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Gary Giovino; Andrew Hyland; David Sweanor; Kenneth E Warner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James F Thrasher; Matthew C Rousu; Rafael Anaya-Ocampo; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Mauricio Hernández-Avila Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.913
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: Jeffrey S Stein; A George Wilson; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Michael C Judd; Warren K Bickel Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Danielle M Smith; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.600