Bo Yang1, Claire Adams Spears2, Lucy Popova3. 1. Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: lpopova1@gsu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes. METHOD: In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD. DISCUSSION: Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.
BACKGROUND: People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes. METHOD: In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD. DISCUSSION: Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.
Authors: Benjamin W Chaffee; Stuart A Gansky; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher; Elizabeth T Couch; Gwen Essex; Margaret M Walsh Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2015-05
Authors: Douglas Ziedonis; Brian Hitsman; Jean C Beckham; Michael Zvolensky; Lawrence E Adler; Janet Audrain-McGovern; Naomi Breslau; Richard A Brown; Tony P George; Jill Williams; Patrick S Calhoun; William T Riley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Muhammad Aziz Rahman; Nicholas Hann; Andrew Wilson; George Mnatzaganian; Linda Worrall-Carter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea H Weinberger; Jiaqi Zhu; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Katarzyna Wyka; Renee D Goodwin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Charlie Albert Smith; Lion Shahab; Ann McNeill; Sarah E Jackson; Jamie Brown; Leonie Brose Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244