INTRODUCTION: Tobacco product characteristics convey product attributes to potential users. This study aimed to assess independent contributions of specific e-cigarette and smokeless tobacco product characteristics to adolescents' perceptions about these products. METHODS: In 2019-2020, students (N=1003) attending a convenience sample of 7 high schools in California (USA) were individually randomized to one of two discrete choice experiments, featuring either electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or moist snuff. Participants were presented like-product pairs of randomlygenerated hypothetical tobacco products differing in device type, flavor, vapor cloud, and nicotine amount (for e-cigarettes) or differing in brand, flavor, cut, and price (for moist snuff). Within pairs, participants were asked about which product they were more curious, was more dangerous, would give a greater 'buzz,' and would be easier to use. Conditional logistic regression was used to quantify independent associations of product characteristics to participants' choices. RESULTS: Each e-cigarette and moist snuff characteristic was independently associated with multiple product perceptions. All non-tobacco flavors were associated with more curiosity and perceived ease-of-use but lower perceived danger. Tank and pod-type e-cigarettes were viewed as easier to use and garnered more curiosity than 'cigalike' or 'drip-mod' devices. Smaller vapor cloud e-cigarettes and lower-price moist snuff were viewed as less dangerous, less buzz-inducing, and easier to use. Product ever users held stronger perceptions than never users about device type (e-cigarettes) and brands (moist snuff), while product naïve participants more strongly associated flavor with danger and buzz. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco product characteristics convey product attributes to adolescents that may increase appeal. Restricting specific characteristics, including flavors, could reduce positive perceptions of these products among youth.
INTRODUCTION:Tobacco product characteristics convey product attributes to potential users. This study aimed to assess independent contributions of specific e-cigarette and smokeless tobacco product characteristics to adolescents' perceptions about these products. METHODS: In 2019-2020, students (N=1003) attending a convenience sample of 7 high schools in California (USA) were individually randomized to one of two discrete choice experiments, featuring either electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or moist snuff. Participants were presented like-product pairs of randomlygenerated hypothetical tobacco products differing in device type, flavor, vapor cloud, and nicotine amount (for e-cigarettes) or differing in brand, flavor, cut, and price (for moist snuff). Within pairs, participants were asked about which product they were more curious, was more dangerous, would give a greater 'buzz,' and would be easier to use. Conditional logistic regression was used to quantify independent associations of product characteristics to participants' choices. RESULTS: Each e-cigarette and moist snuff characteristic was independently associated with multiple product perceptions. All non-tobacco flavors were associated with more curiosity and perceived ease-of-use but lower perceived danger. Tank and pod-type e-cigarettes were viewed as easier to use and garnered more curiosity than 'cigalike' or 'drip-mod' devices. Smaller vapor cloud e-cigarettes and lower-price moist snuff were viewed as less dangerous, less buzz-inducing, and easier to use. Product ever users held stronger perceptions than never users about device type (e-cigarettes) and brands (moist snuff), while product naïve participants more strongly associated flavor with danger and buzz. CONCLUSIONS:Tobacco product characteristics convey product attributes to adolescents that may increase appeal. Restricting specific characteristics, including flavors, could reduce positive perceptions of these products among youth.
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Krysten W Bold; Grace Kong; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Deepa R Camenga; Patricia Simon; Asti Jackson; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: James F Thrasher; Dien Anshari; Victoria Lambert-Jessup; Farahnaz Islam; Erin Mead; Lucy Popova; Ramzi Salloum; Crawford Moodie; Jordan Louviere; Eric N Lindblom Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-03
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Wasim Maziak; David Hammond; Rima Nakkash; Farahnaz Islam; Xi Cheng; James F Thrasher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sarah D Kowitt; Clare Meernik; Hannah M Baker; Amira Osman; Li-Ling Huang; Adam O Goldstein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea S Gentzke; MeLisa Creamer; Karen A Cullen; Bridget K Ambrose; Gordon Willis; Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Benjamin W Chaffee; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Fei Liu; Ran Wu; Rob McConnell; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Adam M Leventhal; Grace Kong Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Grace Kong; Benjamin W Chaffee; Ran Wu; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Feifei Liu; Adam M Leventhal; Rob McConnell; Jessica Barrington-Trimis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.852