Katherine C Henderson1, Emily E Loud2, Hue Trong Duong3, Reed M Reynolds1, Bo Yang4, Charity A Ntansah2, David L Ashley1, James F Thrasher2, Lucy Popova1. 1. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. Department of Communication, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. METHODS: In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. RESULTS: While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.
INTRODUCTION: Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. METHODS: In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. RESULTS: While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.
Authors: Megan E Piper; Thomas M Piasecki; E Belle Federman; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Neal L Benowitz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Sharon M Hall; Susan Stewart; Margaret Wilson; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Vaughan W Rees; Jennifer M Kreslake; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Mark Parascandola; Peter G Shields; Gregory N Connolly Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Georges J Nahhas; Ron Borland; Yoo Jin Cho; Janet Chung-Hall; Robert T Fairman; Geoffrey T Fong; Ann McNeill; Lucy Popova; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Jennifer W Tidey; Xianghua Luo; Tracy T Smith; Lauren R Pacek; F Joseph McClernon; Joni A Jensen; Suzanne M Colby; Herbert H Severson; Eric C Donny; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.591