Christine D Czoli1, Geoffrey T Fong1,2,3, Darren Mays4, David Hammond1. 1. School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 3. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. 4. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington District of Columbia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding relative risk perceptions (RRPs) across non-combustible nicotine products. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published up to October 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 5266 records identified, articles not published in English that did not quantitatively assess RRPs across categories of non-combustible nicotine products were excluded, yielding 55 records. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted measures and findings of RRPs for product comparisons of smokeless tobacco (SLT), e-cigarettes (ECs) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to one another, and to combustible cigarettes (CCs). DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 157 samples from 54 studies were included in the analyses. The accuracy of RRPs differed based on the products being compared: although the accuracy of RRPs was variable across studies, substantial proportions of respondents reported inaccurate beliefs about the relative harmfulness of SLT versus CCs, as well as of ECs versus NRT. In addition, in most studies, respondents did not know the relative harmfulness of SLT versus NRT. In contrast, respondents in many studies correctly perceived NRT and ECs as less harmful than CCs. Cigarette smokers and users of non-combustible nicotine products tended to correctly perceive the relative harmfulness of products more often than non-users. Measures used to assess RRPs varied across studies, with different approaches characterised by certain strengths and limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The highly variable and context-specific nature of non-combustible nicotine product RRPs have direct implications for researchers and present several challenges for policymakers working with modified risk products, including issues of measurement, health risk communication and behaviour change. 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/.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding relative risk perceptions (RRPs) across non-combustible nicotine products. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published up to October 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 5266 records identified, articles not published in English that did not quantitatively assess RRPs across categories of non-combustible nicotine products were excluded, yielding 55 records. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted measures and findings of RRPs for product comparisons of smokeless tobacco (SLT), e-cigarettes (ECs) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to one another, and to combustible cigarettes (CCs). DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 157 samples from 54 studies were included in the analyses. The accuracy of RRPs differed based on the products being compared: although the accuracy of RRPs was variable across studies, substantial proportions of respondents reported inaccurate beliefs about the relative harmfulness of SLT versus CCs, as well as of ECs versus NRT. In addition, in most studies, respondents did not know the relative harmfulness of SLT versus NRT. In contrast, respondents in many studies correctly perceived NRT and ECs as less harmful than CCs. Cigarette smokers and users of non-combustible nicotine products tended to correctly perceive the relative harmfulness of products more often than non-users. Measures used to assess RRPs varied across studies, with different approaches characterised by certain strengths and limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The highly variable and context-specific nature of non-combustible nicotine product RRPs have direct implications for researchers and present several challenges for policymakers working with modified risk products, including issues of measurement, health risk communication and behaviour change. 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: Laura A Gibson; MeLisa R Creamer; Alison B Breland; Aida Luz Giachello; Annette Kaufman; Grace Kong; Terry F Pechacek; Jessica K Pepper; Eric K Soule; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Abigail T Evans; Ellen Peters; Abigail B Shoben; Louise R Meilleur; Elizabeth G Klein; Mary Kate Tompkins; Martin Tusler Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2017-04-07
Authors: Andrea C Johnson; Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Sasha Rogelberg; Anupreet K Sidhu; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Melissa Mercincavage; Kirsten Lochbuehler; Andrea C Villanti; E Paul Wileyto; Janet Audrain-McGovern; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kimberly G Wagoner; Jessica L King; Cynthia K Suerken; Beth A Reboussin; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 7.552
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