Olivia A Wackowski1, M Jane Lewis1, Cristine D Delnevo1. 1. Department of Health Education & Behavioral Science, Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and their communication have been topics of discussion in harm reduction debates, but little is known about smokers' perceptions of existing SLT risk messages. This study aimed to explore smokers' perceptions of SLT and snus products and news stories with different risk messages about them. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 30 smokers assigned to read 1 of 3 constructed news stories about SLT and snus with different messages about their risks relative to cigarettes: (1) a 'favourable' version (describing SLT/snus as a 'safer' smoking alternative); (2) a 'cautious' version (describing SLT/snus as having various risks); and (3) a 'mixed' version (both stating SLT risks and potential reduced-risk benefits). RESULTS: Smokers felt somewhat more informed about snus after article reading and largely found quoted sources to be credible. Though some exposed to favourable SLT/snus messages appeared to modify their beliefs about the products' acceptability and risks, many were left unchanged given pre-existing SLT risk perceptions influenced by prior SLT warnings, observed effects in known users, and concerns about SLT's mode of use. Willingness to use/not use snus in the future was also influenced by non-risk-related factors (eg, preference for smoking rituals). Many referenced e-cigarettes as being safer and more attractive smoking alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to reduced-risk SLT information may have some impact on smokers' SLT perceptions and interest, but this might be limited by a variety of negative SLT beliefs and growth of other smoking alternatives. Future research should explore SLT risk message effects with larger samples and different study designs. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and their communication have been topics of discussion in harm reduction debates, but little is known about smokers' perceptions of existing SLT risk messages. This study aimed to explore smokers' perceptions of SLT and snus products and news stories with different risk messages about them. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 30 smokers assigned to read 1 of 3 constructed news stories about SLT and snus with different messages about their risks relative to cigarettes: (1) a 'favourable' version (describing SLT/snus as a 'safer' smoking alternative); (2) a 'cautious' version (describing SLT/snus as having various risks); and (3) a 'mixed' version (both stating SLT risks and potential reduced-risk benefits). RESULTS: Smokers felt somewhat more informed about snus after article reading and largely found quoted sources to be credible. Though some exposed to favourable SLT/snus messages appeared to modify their beliefs about the products' acceptability and risks, many were left unchanged given pre-existing SLT risk perceptions influenced by prior SLT warnings, observed effects in known users, and concerns about SLT's mode of use. Willingness to use/not use snus in the future was also influenced by non-risk-related factors (eg, preference for smoking rituals). Many referenced e-cigarettes as being safer and more attractive smoking alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to reduced-risk SLT information may have some impact on smokers' SLT perceptions and interest, but this might be limited by a variety of negative SLT beliefs and growth of other smoking alternatives. Future research should explore SLT risk message effects with larger samples and different study designs. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
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: 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: Nattinee Jitnarin; Walker S C Poston; Sara A Jahnke; Christopher K Haddock; Hannah N Kelley; Herbert H Severson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tara Elton-Marshall; Pete Driezen; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; Alexander Persoskie; Olivia Wackowski; Kelvin Choi; Annette Kaufman; David Strong; Shannon Gravely; Kristie Taylor; Jonathan Kwan; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Mark Travers; Andrew Hyland Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Olivia A Wackowski; Richard J O'Connor; Destiny Diaz; Mariam Rashid; M Jane Lewis; Kathryn Greene Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga-Hess; Stuart G Ferguson; Geri Dino; Summer Kuhn; Ilana Haliwa; Melissa D Blank Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 7.552