Benjamin W Chaffee1, Jing Cheng2. 1. Assistant Professor, University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, CA. 2. Professor, University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Compare cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) perceptions within a youth population where ST use is common. METHODS: Male baseball players (N = 594) at 36 rural high schools in California rated separately 20 potential risks or benefits associated with cigarettes or ST, along with global harm ratings. Informed by principal components analysis, 3 composite categories were created: oral/rule-breaking risks (eg, mouth cancer, getting in trouble), systemic risks (eg, heart attack), and benefits (eg, relaxation). Standardized composite scores and harm ratings were compared by product and by tobacco use status. RESULTS: Cigarettes were perceived as likely to impart oral/rule-breaking risks and systemic risks, unlikely to cause benefits, and as very harmful overall. ST was perceived similarly as cigarettes regarding oral/rule-breaking risks, but less likely to cause systemic risks, and more beneficial. Most participants rated cigarettes as more harmful than ST. Similar patterns existed in all tobacco use groups, including non-users and dual-users. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, cigarettes were perceived as very harmful. ST was perceived similarly to cigarettes only for some risks and as less harmful overall. Communication for rural adolescents should consider multifaceted aspects of ST risk.
OBJECTIVES: Compare cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) perceptions within a youth population where ST use is common. METHODS: Male baseball players (N = 594) at 36 rural high schools in California rated separately 20 potential risks or benefits associated with cigarettes or ST, along with global harm ratings. Informed by principal components analysis, 3 composite categories were created: oral/rule-breaking risks (eg, mouth cancer, getting in trouble), systemic risks (eg, heart attack), and benefits (eg, relaxation). Standardized composite scores and harm ratings were compared by product and by tobacco use status. RESULTS: Cigarettes were perceived as likely to impart oral/rule-breaking risks and systemic risks, unlikely to cause benefits, and as very harmful overall. ST was perceived similarly as cigarettes regarding oral/rule-breaking risks, but less likely to cause systemic risks, and more beneficial. Most participants rated cigarettes as more harmful than ST. Similar patterns existed in all tobacco use groups, including non-users and dual-users. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, cigarettes were perceived as very harmful. ST was perceived similarly to cigarettes only for some risks and as less harmful overall. Communication for rural adolescents should consider multifaceted aspects of ST risk.
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