Literature DB >> 33753549

'95% less harmful'? Exploring reactions to quantitative modified risk claims for snus and e-cigarettes.

Olivia A Wackowski1, Richard J O'Connor2, Destiny Diaz2, Mariam Rashid3, M Jane Lewis3, Kathryn Greene4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Studies examining perceptions of 'modified risk tobacco product' (MRTP) messages for e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have indicated consumers want statistics and quantification of harm reduction. However, limited research exists on reactions to quantitative MRTP messages.
DESIGN: We conducted 12 focus groups in the USA in 2019-6 focused on e-cigarette messages and 6 on snus messages. Eight groups were with current smokers (ages 21-66) and four with young adult (ages 18-25) non-smokers (n=57). Participants discussed messages stating that use of snus and vaping products have been estimated by scientists to be about 90% and 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes, respectively.
RESULTS: Several participants agreed the messages strongly communicated that the products are less harmful than cigarettes, were attention getting and could be 'convincing'. However, participants expressed scepticism about the source and accuracy of the stated figures, and some noted the claims could be misleading and attractive to young people. Comments also reflected some claim misunderstandings (eg, that e-cigarettes only pose a 5% chance of harm). Participants also agreed that stating e-cigarette risks 'are unlikely to exceed 5% of cigarette smoking harms' was confusing and less impactful than the '95% less harmful' wording.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative claims suggesting high levels of reduced risk when comparing e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco/snus relative to cigarettes may be successful in gaining attention and being persuasive for some audiences, particularly, if from more credible sources. However, message developers, users and evaluators should be mindful of message limitations and aim to mitigate unintended consequences. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  electronic nicotine delivery devices; harm reduction; non-cigarette tobacco products

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33753549      PMCID: PMC8455704          DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   6.953


  34 in total

1.  The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: estimates of a panel of experts.

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

2.  Managing nicotine without smoke to save lives now: Evidence for harm minimization.

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

3.  A Nicotine-Focused Framework for Public Health.

Authors:  Scott Gottlieb; Mitchell Zeller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Interviews with smokers about smokeless tobacco products, risk messages and news articles.

Authors:  Olivia A Wackowski; M Jane Lewis; Cristine D Delnevo
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Exposure to Nicotine and Selected Toxicants in Cigarette Smokers Who Switched to Electronic Cigarettes: A Longitudinal Within-Subjects Observational Study.

Authors:  Maciej L Goniewicz; Michal Gawron; Danielle M Smith; Margaret Peng; Peyton Jacob; Neal L Benowitz
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach.

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

7.  Relative Risk Perceptions between Snus and Cigarettes in a Snus-Prevalent Society-An Observational Study over a 16 Year Period.

Authors:  Karl Erik Lund; Tord Finne Vedoy
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Hayden McRobbie; Nicola Lindson; Chris Bullen; Rachna Begh; Annika Theodoulou; Caitlin Notley; Nancy A Rigotti; Tari Turner; Ailsa R Butler; Peter Hajek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-10-14

9.  Perceived relative harm of electronic cigarettes over time and impact on subsequent use. A survey with 1-year and 2-year follow-ups.

Authors:  Leonie S Brose; Jamie Brown; Sara C Hitchman; Ann McNeill
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Smokeless tobacco use and circulatory disease risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Brian L Rostron; Joanne T Chang; Gabriella M Anic; Manju Tanwar; Cindy M Chang; Catherine G Corey
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2018-10-08
View more
  2 in total

1.  Responses to reduced nicotine cigarette marketing features: a systematic review.

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

2.  Exploring the implications of modified risk claim placement in tobacco advertising.

Authors:  Olivia A Wackowski; Stefanie K Gratale; Mariam T Rashid; Kathryn Greene; Richard J O'Connor
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-10-19
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.