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

Smokers' perceptions of risks and harm from snus relative to cigarettes: A latent profile analysis study

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.

The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace: Narratives engage cognitive biases to increase electronic cigarette substitution

BACKGROUND

The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace (ETM) is a digital storefront in which participants can purchase tobacco products using an account balance that reflects their typical tobacco product purchasing. The ETM is also an ideal resource to investigate the harm-reduction potential of alternative nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. In a series of experiments, we explored the effects of harm-reduction narratives that encouraged e-cigarette substitution of conventional cigarettes in the ETM. These narratives incorporated different cognitive biases in order to determine which strategy is most effective.

METHODS

In both experiments, participants, recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, read a narrative about a friend that either falls ill or faces financial difficulties and then made purchases in the ETM. Some of these narratives specifically incorporated different cognitive biases including trusting authority. Across ETM trials, the price of conventional cigarettes increased while the price of the alternative products, including e-cigarettes, remained constant.

RESULTS

Across both experiments, a general pattern emerged supporting the effectiveness of narratives in increasing e-cigarette purchasing. Importantly, from a harm-reduction perspective, this increase in e-cigarette substitution frequently corresponded with a decrease in conventional cigarette purchasing.

CONCLUSIONS

Narratives can decrease conventional cigarette and increase e-cigarette purchasing in an ETM that mimics real-world marketplaces. Invoking different cognitive biases may bolster this effect. Narratives can be a valuable harm-reduction tool because they are cost-effective, can be widely disseminated, and can be personalized to individuals.

Re: Disregarding the impact of nicotine on the developing brain when evaluating costs and benefits of noncombustible nicotine products

This Letter to the Editor is in response to a letter from Ms. Flannery, titled, "Disregarding the impact of nicotine on the developing brain when evaluating costs and benefits of noncombustible nicotine products". In our response, we address some concerns raised by Ms. Flannery, and reiterate our position in our original article. In particular, we underline the importance of a rational public health calculus that weighs beneficial and harmful consequences of policies related to noncombustible nicotine product (NNP) use. We further emphasize the need to correct misperceptions about relative risk of different products to encourage smokers to switch to NNPs. Lastly, we are explicit about our assertion that no use of any nicotine-containing products is the only way to avoid harm at any age, but that we must view this issue pragmatically for the benefit of public health.

Editorial: 5th Special Issue on behavior change, health, and health disparities

This Special Issue of Preventive Medicine (PM) is the 5th in a series on behavior change, health, and health disparities. Unhealthy behavior patterns (i.e., lifestyle choices) including cigarette smoking and other substance abuse, physical inactivity, unhealthy food choices, and non-adherence with recommended medical regimens, undermine U.S. population health by increasing risk for chronic disease and premature death. This Special Issue brings together scholarly contributions from the emerging area of tobacco regulatory science to examine current topics of critical importance to reducing the burden of cigarette smoking on U.S. population health. More specifically, three related topics are examined including (a) the potential for reducing smoking by adopting a national policy that would cap the nicotine content of cigarettes at minimally-addictive levels; (b) increasing scientific understanding of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use among populations that are especially vulnerable to initiating smoking, tobacco addiction, and its adverse health consequences; and (c) the potential of a harm-reduction strategy for reducing the burden of smoking by advocating that those who are unwilling or unable to quit nicotine use substitute electronic cigarettes or other non-combusted sources of nicotine for cigarettes in order to avoid exposure to the other toxins in tobacco smoke that are most responsible for smoking morbidity and mortality. While tremendous progress has been made in reducing overall U.S. smoking prevalence and its adverse health impacts, more needs to be done. This Special Issue offers some ideas that have the potential to make a substantive contribution towards that goal.

Are we guilty of errors of omission on the potential role of electronic nicotine delivery systems as less harmful substitutes for combusted tobacco use?

Two of the more controversial tobacco control and regulatory strategies in recent years are the nicotine reduction and tobacco harm reduction (THR) strategies. They have become inextricably intertwined as a successful nicotine reduction policy might only be possible in an environment in which alternative, noncombusted forms of nicotine like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are available to address the needs of those who were unable or unwilling to completely give up nicotine. Unfortunately, ENDS have emerged as particularly controversial, in part, because they are the first product to carry reduced risk potential while being broadly appealing to cigarette smokers across demographic groups and subpopulations, and to a much smaller extent nonsmokers including, and most controversial, adolescents. In an effort to better understand some of the reasons that make this a controversial topic, we review some of the relevant history and discuss a broader dilemma that faces practitioners and policy developers of medical and public health interventions, namely, weighing the potential consequences of errors of commission versus omission. Commission errors involve a salient, direct link between an action and associated adverse or unintended consequences while omission errors are typically less salient with a more indirect link between inaction and associated adverse consequences. Decision-making research demonstrates that humans have a bias towards avoidance of commission errors and insensitivity to omission errors. This bias may be contributing to some of the aforementioned difficulties in finding common ground regarding the potential contribution of ENDS to reducing the harm of combusted tobacco use.