Olivia A Wackowski1, Anne E Ray2, Jerod L Stapleton3. 1. Center for Tobacco Studies, Department of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Electronic address: wackowol@sph.rutgers.edu. 2. Center for Tobacco Studies, Department of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. 3. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Department of Medicine, Rutgers University, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Certain types of smokeless tobacco (SLT) products, particularly snus, carry fewer health risks than cigarette smoking and might be able to serve as harm-reduction products for smokers. However, studies frequently find that smokers misperceive SLT and snus to be as or more harmful than smoking. This perception is often measured with a single general harm question, and research on underlying risk perceptions is limited. METHODS: Using a sample of 256 current smokers, we utilized Latent Profile Analysis to examine response profiles to items that assessed perceived risk of specific health outcomes (lung cancer, heart disease, oral cancer) from snus relative to cigarettes, along with the typical single item measure of overall harm from snus compared to cigarettes. RESULTS: Three smoker response profiles emerged. Almost half (44.9%) of smokers perceived snus to be as or more risky than cigarettes for all three specific health outcomes (group 1), while over one third (38.3%) had an elevated perceived risk for oral cancer only (group 2). About 17% of smokers perceived snus to have lower risks for lung cancer only (group 3). Across each profile, perceived risk was highest for oral cancer. CONCLUSIONS: If smokers are to consider snus for harm-reduction, efforts may be needed to better inform smokers about their lower relative risks, including for particular health outcomes of interest. This study also suggests that smokers may vary in their level of need for information to correct their relative risk misperceptions.
INTRODUCTION: Certain types of smokeless tobacco (SLT) products, particularly snus, carry fewer health risks than cigarette smoking and might be able to serve as harm-reduction products for smokers. However, studies frequently find that smokers misperceive SLT and snus to be as or more harmful than smoking. This perception is often measured with a single general harm question, and research on underlying risk perceptions is limited. METHODS: Using a sample of 256 current smokers, we utilized Latent Profile Analysis to examine response profiles to items that assessed perceived risk of specific health outcomes (lung cancer, heart disease, oral cancer) from snus relative to cigarettes, along with the typical single item measure of overall harm from snus compared to cigarettes. RESULTS: Three smoker response profiles emerged. Almost half (44.9%) of smokers perceived snus to be as or more risky than cigarettes for all three specific health outcomes (group 1), while over one third (38.3%) had an elevated perceived risk for oral cancer only (group 2). About 17% of smokers perceived snus to have lower risks for lung cancer only (group 3). Across each profile, perceived risk was highest for oral cancer. CONCLUSIONS: If smokers are to consider snus for harm-reduction, efforts may be needed to better inform smokers about their lower relative risks, including for particular health outcomes of interest. This study also suggests that smokers may vary in their level of need for information to correct their relative risk misperceptions.
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: David B Abrams; Allison M Glasser; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Shyanika Rose; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: David J Nutt; Lawrence D Phillips; David Balfour; H Valerie Curran; Martin Dockrell; Jonathan Foulds; Karl Fagerstrom; Kgosi Letlape; Anders Milton; Riccardo Polosa; John Ramsey; David Sweanor Journal: Eur Addict Res Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Ron Borland; Lin Li; K Michael Cummings; Richard O'Connor; Kevin Mortimer; Tom Wikmans; Lars Ramstrom; Bill King; Ann McNeill Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2012-06-11
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
Authors: Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Lauren R Pacek; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Eric C Donny; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Dana Mowls Carroll Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Shelly Naud; Julia C West; Jennifer L Pearson; Olivia A Wackowski; Elizabeth Hair; Jessica M Rath; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244