Communicating the relative health risks of E-cigarettes: An online experimental study exploring the effects of a comparative health message versus the EU nicotine addiction warnings on smokers' and non-smokers' risk perceptions and behavioural intentions

The Role of e-Cigarette Packaging as a Health Communications Tool: A Focus Group Study With Adolescents and Adults in England and Scotland

INTRODUCTION

In the United Kingdom, e-cigarette and refill packaging must display a nicotine addiction warning. This study explored how this message is perceived, responses to alternative on-pack messages, and other options for using e-cigarette packaging to discourage youth and people who neither smoke nor use e-cigarettes while encouraging smokers to switch.

AIMS AND METHODS

Between August and September 2022, 16 focus groups (n = 70) were conducted to explore these topics with adolescents (n = 31, aged 11-17 years) and adults (n = 39, nonsmokers, smokers that use e-cigarettes, smokers that do not use e-cigarettes) in England and Scotland.

RESULTS

While several participants thought the current nicotine addiction warning could help increase awareness of nicotine addiction, most reported that it failed to capture attention and was not a deterrent. Alternative messages shown on packs (about harm, toxicity, wellness, litter, or relative risk) received mixed responses. Relative risk messages were perceived as most beneficial for smokers switching but also thought to potentially encourage uptake among nonsmokers. Some participants considered certain harm and toxicity messages to potentially dissuade uptake. Participants proposed several ideas to reduce the appeal of e-cigarette packaging and devices to deter youth uptake, including more prominent warnings, standardized packaging, and devices that are plain or include health messages.

CONCLUSIONS

Packaging can play a crucial role in communicating product and health messages to different consumer groups. Further consideration of how packaging and labeling can meet the needs of non-nicotine users while simultaneously reaching those who may benefit from using e-cigarettes to stop smoking is warranted.

IMPLICATIONS

While some viewed the nicotine addiction warning required on e-cigarettes and refill packaging in the United Kingdom as helpful in raising awareness of nicotine addiction, it did not resonate with most of our sample of adolescents and adults. The findings suggest that e-cigarette packaging could be better used to encourage smokers to switch to a less harmful alternative, with relative risk messages showing promise. Furthermore, strengthening on-pack messaging (eg increasing salience and rotating messages) and reducing the appeal of packaging (eg drab colors) and devices (eg including warnings) may help increase awareness of e-cigarette harms while deterring use among adolescents and nonsmokers.

Noticing Voluntary E-Cigarette Warning Labels and Associations With Harm Perceptions and Use Intentions: A Baseline Cross-Sectional Analysis of Wave 4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Prior to the Food and Drug Administration Mandate

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of e-cigarette warning labels (EWLs) prior to the August 2018 FDA-warning label mandate to establish a baseline for future research.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of adult participants in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study (n = 30,004) at Wave 4 (Dec 2016-Jan 2018).

MEASURES

Correlates (e.g., sociodemographics, substance use, social influence, cigarette warnings, and mental health) of noticing EWLs in the past 30-days (noticed vs did not notice), perceived harm of e-cigarettes/nicotine (from 1 = not at all harmful to 5 = extremely harmful), relative harm of e-cigarettes (from 1 = less harmful to 3 = more harmful than cigarettes), intention to quit (yes/no) and intention to try e-cigarettes (from 1 = definitely not to 4 = definitely yes).

RESULTS

The prevalence of noticing EWLs was 22.1%. Those who currently use electronic nicotine products, established and experimentally, were more likely to notice EWLs relative to never users (aOR = 3.55; 95% CI: 2.96-4.25; P < .001 and aOR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.88-3.10; P < .001, respectively). Those with past 30-day alcohol and cigarette use were less likely to notice EWLs (aOR = .27; 95% CI: .24-.31 and aOR = .91; 95% CI: .83-.99; respectively). Those who noticed cigarette warnings were more likely to notice EWLs (aOR = 12.00; 95% CI: 10.46-13.77; P < .001). Among those who noticed EWLs, there were higher odds of perceiving e-cigarettes to be equally or more harmful than cigarettes (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02-1.30), but no association was found between noticing EWLs and perceived harm of e-cigarettes/nicotine or use intentions.

CONCLUSION

Noticing voluntary EWLs was not associated with increased perceived harm of e-cigarettes and nicotine harm, or e-cigarette use intentions. Future research is warranted to examine the effect of the FDA mandated EWLs.

Warning Labels as a Public Health Intervention: Effects and Challenges for Tobacco, Cannabis, and Opioid Medications

Warning labels help consumers understand product risks, enabling informed decisions. Since the 1966 introduction of cigarette warning labels in the United States, research has determined the most effective message content (health effects information) and format (brand-free packaging with pictures). However, new challenges have emerged. This article reviews the current state of tobacco warning labels in the United States, where legal battles have stalled pictorial cigarette warnings and new products such as electronic cigarettes and synthetic nicotine products pose unknown health risks. This article describes the emerging research on cannabis warnings; as more places legalize recreational cannabis, they are adopting lessons from tobacco warnings. However, its uncertain legal status and widespread underestimation of harms impede strict warning standards. The article also reviews opioid medication warning labels, suggesting that lessons from tobacco could help in the development of effective and culturally appropriate FDA-compliant opioid warning labels that promote safe medication use and increased co-dispensing of naloxone.

Time-Varying Determinants of Changes in E-Cigarette Relative Harm Perception Among US Young Adults

BACKGROUND

Current e-cigarette use has increased among young adults in the USA despite a consistent decrease in perceiving e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes over time. This study examined time-varying predictors associated with the changes in e-cigarette relative harm perception over time among US young adults.

METHODS

Data were from the 2013-2018 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study for young adults (18-24 years). A time-varying effect model (TVEM) was applied to examine the association between the relative harm perception change and the associated time-varying predictors.

RESULTS

Of the 8427 young adults, the prevalence of those who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes decreased from 50.3% in Wave 1 (2013-2014) to 27.7% in Wave 4 (2016-2018). Young adults who were male were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes over time (OR = 1.58; 95%CI, 1.53-1.64). In addition, the changes in e-cigarette relative harm perception were less noticeable among those with advanced degrees, who had non-combustible smoke-free home rules, who held negative tobacco-related attitudes, and those who were current e-cigarette users or ever used alcohol (all p values < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A decline was observed in US young adults who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes from the PATH Study across four waves (2013-2018). The study findings underscore the importance of risk communication that focuses on harm perception profiles and the need for appropriate interventions to balance the considerations of e-cigarette use among young adults.

Examining Perceptions of Uncertain Language in Potential E-Cigarette Warning Labels: Results from 16 Focus Groups with Adult Tobacco Users and Youth

E-cigarette use among youth presents a public health risk. Yet, cigarette smokers who substantially reduce their smoking or switch completely from traditional combustible cigarettes could benefit. As science about e-cigarettes is continually emerging, any potential warnings are likely to contain uncertain language. Hedged verbiage may impact decision making. To assess reactions, we conducted 16 online focus groups; 8 with youth (n = 32, grouped by gender and by vaping experience) and 8 with adult tobacco users (n = 37, grouped by smokers, dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and former smokers who switched to e-cigarettes). Each focus group viewed and discussed 8 potential warnings messages. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the reactions to warning messages that contain uncertain language. Respondents' reactions were often negative, but varied based on specific usages of uncertainty, existing beliefs about uncertainty in law and science, and smoking/vaping use patterns that supported the use of uncertainty related to e-cigarettes. Many youth (and some adults) believed that uncertain language enabled audiences to minimize the likelihood of harm or interpreted it as meaning there are both healthy and unhealthy e-cigarettes. This qualitative study provides evidence that the use of types of uncertain language, the frequency of that use, and/or the selection of particular words in warnings, might not achieve the intended public health aims of increasing understanding of risk, deterring youth uptake, and/or facilitating a substantial switch from cigarettes. The use of certain types of uncertain language appears to have significant potential to bring unintended consequences. Suggestions for research and policy are included.

Interventions to prevent or cease electronic cigarette use in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased globally amongst children and adolescents in recent years. In response to the increasing prevalence and emerging evidence about the potential harms of e-cigarettes in children and adolescents, leading public health organisations have called for approaches to address increasing e-cigarette use. Whilst evaluations of approaches to reduce uptake and use regularly appear in the literature, the collective long-term benefit of these is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The co-primary objectives of the review were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) with no prior use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention; and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to cease e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) reporting current use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention. Secondary objectives were to: (1) examine the effect of such interventions on child and adolescent use of other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars types, and chewing tobacco); and (2) describe the unintended adverse effects of the intervention on individuals (e.g. physical or mental health of individuals), or on organisations (e.g. intervention displacement of key curricula or learning opportunities for school students) where such interventions are being implemented.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 1 May 2023. Additionally, we searched two trial registry platforms (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We contacted corresponding authors of articles identified as ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, factorial RCTs, and stepped-wedge RCTs. To be eligible, the primary targets of the interventions must have been children and adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Interventions could have been conducted in any setting, including community, school, health services, or the home, and must have sought to influence children or adolescent (or both) e-cigarette use directly. Studies with a comparator of no intervention (i.e. control), waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention not targeting e-cigarette use were eligible. We included measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions to: prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst those who were never-users); and cease e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst children and adolescents who were e-cigarette current-users). Measures of e-cigarette use included current-use (defined as use in the past 30 days) and ever-use (defined as any lifetime use).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of references, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Pairs of review authors independently assessed the full-text articles for inclusion in the review. We planned for two review authors to independently extract information from the included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We planned to conduct multiple meta-analyses using a random-effects model to align with the co-primary objectives of the review. First, we planned to pool interventions to prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct two analyses using the outcome measures of 'ever-use' and 'current-use'. Second, we planned to pool interventions to cease child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct one analysis using the outcome measure of 'current-use'. Where data were unsuitable for pooling in meta-analyses, we planned to conduct a narrative synthesis using vote-counting approaches and to follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

The search of electronic databases identified 7141 citations, with a further 287 records identified from the search of trial registries and Google Scholar. Of the 110 studies (116 records) evaluated in full text, we considered 88 to be ineligible for inclusion for the following reasons: inappropriate outcome (27 studies); intervention (12 studies); study design (31 studies); and participants (18 studies). The remaining 22 studies (28 records) were identified as ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion in a future review update. We identified no studies with published data that were eligible for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review, and as such, there is no evidence available from RCTs to assess the potential impact of interventions targeting children and adolescent e-cigarette use, tobacco use, or any unintended adverse effects. Evidence from studies employing other trial designs (e.g. non-randomised) may exist; however, such studies were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Evidence from studies using non-randomised designs should be examined to guide actions to prevent or cease e-cigarette use. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every month and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

The changes in smoking stigmatization during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

This study aimed to analyze the changes in smoking stigmatization in relation to an individual's smoking status after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Study design

A 2 (before vs. after COVID-19) X 2 (smoking status: smoker vs. non-smoker) factorial design was developed.

Methods

Two national surveys were conducted, one each before (between January 7th and 15th, 2020) and after (between January 26th and February 18th, 2021) the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea. A total of 7296 representative adult responses were finalized. Respondents were categorized into two groups: non-smokers and smokers. Smoking stigma was measured in two ways: social and personal.

Results

In general, smoking stigmatization intensified after the COVID-19 outbreak. However, there was a discrepancy in responses based on smoking status-non-smokers exhibited a heightened negative stigma toward smokers, whereas smokers had generous perspectives about themselves.

Conclusions

The health-oriented environment generated by the response to COVID-19 is leading to increased stigmatization of smokers who pose a risk to public health. However, the discrepancy between smokers and non-smokers shows that social efforts are required to alter smokers' generous views about themselves and to persuade them to cease smoking.

Effect of a hypothetical modified risk tobacco product claim on heated tobacco product use intention and perceptions in young adults

INTRODUCTION

Modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims for heated tobacco products (HTPs) that convey reduced exposure compared with conventional cigarettes may promote product initiation and transition among young people. We assessed the effects of a hypothetical MRTP claim for HTPs on young adults' intention and perceptions of using HTPs and whether these effects differed by their current cigarette and e-cigarette use.

METHODS

We embedded a randomised between-subjects experiment into a web-based survey administered among a cohort of 2354 Southern California young adults (aged 20-23) in 2020. Participants viewed depictions of HTPs with an MRTP claim (n=1190) or no claim (n=1164). HTP use intention and HTP-related harm and use perceptions relative to cigarettes and e-cigarettes were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, participants who viewed versus did not view the claim did not differ in HTP use intention (28.5% vs 28.7%) but were more likely to perceive HTPs as less harmful than cigarettes (11.4% vs 7.0%; p<0.001). The experimental effect on HTP use intention did not differ among past 30-day cigarette smokers versus non-smokers (interaction adjusted OR (AOR)=0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.76) but differed among past 30-day e-cigarette users versus non-users (interaction AOR=1.67, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.68).

DISCUSSION

The hypothetical MRTP claim may lower young adults' HTP harm perceptions compared with cigarettes but may not change HTP use intention overall or differentially for cigarette smokers. The larger effect on HTP use intention among e-cigarette users than non-users raises the question of whether MRTP claims may promote HTP use or HTP and e-cigarette dual use among young e-cigarette users.

Changes in harm perception of ENDS and their predictors among US adolescents: findings from the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study, 2013-2018

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use has dramatically increased in the US. This study aimed to characterize changes in ENDS harm perception over time and associated predictors among US adolescents. Data from the 2013-2018 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (PATH) for adolescents (12-17 years) were utilized. Trend analyses were employed to delineate changes in comparative and absolute ENDS harm perception over a four-year interval. We applied a time-varying effect model (TVEM) to examine the associations between the changes in harm perception and associated predictors. The results suggest that perception of ENDS as less harmful than cigarettes significantly decreased from 54.3% at Wave 1 (2013) to 30.4% at Wave 4 (2018) (P < 0.001). Perception of ENDS as no or little harm decreased from 35.9% at Wave 1 to 16.9% at Wave 4 (P < 0.001). These changes in harm perception were less robust among males, adolescents who did not have positive tobacco-related attitudes, and those with smoke-free home rules (P's < 0.05). Additionally, having ever used ENDS or alcohol were more likely to be associated with reduced ENDS-related harm perception over time (P's < 0.05). Our results show that while ENDS-related harm perception have generally increased, this does not appear to be equally experienced across all adolescents, potentially highlighting the importance of at-risk groups and targets for intervention. This study can help identify individuals at risk of ENDS initiation because of their favorable ENDS harm perception profile, as well as guide the development of ENDS risk communication interventions for adolescents.

Changes in responses to nicotine vaping product warnings and leaflets in England compared with Canada, the US and Australia: findings from the 2016-2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In May 2017, black-and-white text nicotine addiction warning labels ('warnings') and health and safety leaflets ('leaflets') became mandatory for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) in England, in accordance with the European Union's Tobacco Products Directive. We compared changes over time in noticing warnings and leaflets, recall of warnings about nicotine and concerns about using NVP due to noticing warnings in England, compared with Canada, the US and Australia, where no warnings and leaflets were mandated.

DESIGN

19 005 adult (aged 18+) NVP users, smokers and quitters of cigarettes and NVP from the 2016 and 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys in England, Canada, the US and Australia, recruited via probability and non-probability sampling.

FINDINGS

Noticing warnings increased in England from 4.9% (2016) to 9.4% (2018) (adjusted OR/AOR=1.64, 95% CI=1.15-2.36); this change was larger than changes in Canada (AOR=2.51, 95% CI=1.71-3.69) and the US (AOR=2.22, 95% CI=1.45-3.39). Recall of a nicotine warning increased in England from 86% (2016) to 94.9% (2018) (AOR=5.50, 95% CI=1.57-19.27) but not significantly elsewhere. Noticing leaflets increased in England from 14.6% (2016) to 19.1% (2018) (AOR=1.42, 95% CI=1.15-1.74); this change was larger than in Canada (AOR=1.42, 95% CI=1.12-1.79), the US (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.17-2.06) and Australia (AOR=1.51, 95% CI=1.02-2.22). Among those noticing warnings, concern about NVP use did not change significantly between 2016 and 2018 (all countries p>0.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of mandatory NVP warnings and leaflets in England was associated with small increases in noticing them but not with changes in concerns about NVP use.

Associations Between Noticing Nicotine Vaping Product Health Warning Labels, Harm Perceptions, and Use among adult vapers, current and former smokers. Findings From the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey

BACKGROUND

The number of countries mandating a nicotine addiction warning label ('warnings') on nicotine vaping products (NVPs) has been increasing. This study examined associations between noticing NVP warnings, perceptions of NVPs, and intentions to use NVPs.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of 12,619 adult NVP users, cigarette smokers, concurrent users of both cigarettes and NVPs, and quitters who participated in the 2018 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (England, Australia, Canada, US). Logistic regression analyses examined associations between noticing warnings in the past 30 days and perceptions of nicotine harm, NVP harm relative to cigarettes, and NVP addictiveness relative to cigarettes. Associations were also explored between noticing warnings and intentions to use NVPs.

RESULTS

Noticing warnings was higher among NVP users (18.8%) than non-users (2.1%). Noticing warnings was associated with perceiving nicotine to pose little or no harm to health among NVP users, but there was no association among non-users. There was little evidence of an association between noticing warnings and perceptions of NVP harms relative to smoking among NVP users and non-users. Noticing warnings was associated with perceiving NVPs as less addictive than cigarettes among non-users but not NVP users. Among exclusive smokers, noticing warnings was associated with intending to start using NVPs. Among NVP users, there was little evidence of an association between noticing warnings and intentions to continue using/stopping NVPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Noticing NVP warnings was not associated with increased NVP and nicotine harm perceptions or decreased intentions to use NVPs among adult smokers and vapers.

Impact of e-liquid warning labels on young adults' perception of e-cigarettes and intention to use them: an experimental online study

INTRODUCTION

Flavoured e-liquids are especially appealing to young adults. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of text warning labels (WLs) on e-liquid vials used in flavoured electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on e-cigarette non-users' perceptions of harm, addictiveness, emotional valence, interest in trying e-cigarettes and visual attention.

METHODS

Young adults aged 18-25 years (n=313) who were non-e-cigarette users were recruited online and randomised to view images of one of two e-liquid vial conditions (with text WL or without text WL). Each participant was exposed to four images of e-liquid vials. After observing each image, participants reported interest in trying e-cigarettes, emotional valence, perceived harm and addictiveness. Additionally, participants completed an assessment of self-reported visual attention with a priori regions of interest (e-liquid branding and text WL).

RESULTS

Separate two-way Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) that examined the main effects of sex and warning were used for each measure. Text WL on e-liquid vials decreased young adults' intention to use e-cigarettes (especially in men), increased harm perception and decreased appeal to the product. However, they did not influence the perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes and rarely grabbed attention. Men perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful and less addictive.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that text WLs on e-liquid vials are moderately effective in preventing e-cigarette use in young adults. However, they capture less attention than the rest of the vial and fail to increase the perception of addictiveness. It is suggested to explore other types of design to increase the effectiveness of WLs.

Exploring the implications of modified risk claim placement in tobacco advertising

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed a regulatory process by which tobacco companies can apply to make "modified risk tobacco product" (MRTP) marketing claims that their product poses a lower risk of disease or exposure to harmful constituents. The impact of MRTP claims to promote harm reduction may be limited by perceptions that claims come from the tobacco industry, lack of attention, and the simultaneous presence of health warnings on ads, which may be perceived as conflicting information. Some studies have examined the potential of alternative "modified risk warnings". We aimed to contribute to this literature by exploring issues of claim attention, perceived source and credibility when viewing MRTP claims within or outside of a warning label. We conducted 11 focus groups with adult smokers and young adult (ages 18-25) non-smokers (n = 54) who viewed three e-cigarette or snus advertisements which varied in where an MRTP message was placed: outside the warning label, inside the warning label, or in a modified label style. Results suggest that MRTP claims presented within or in the style of a warning label (compared to claims outside the label), may be perceived as coming from a government or health-related source rather than a tobacco industry, and thus seem more credible. Yet these formats may receive insufficient message attention, as they are smaller and appear as part of labels consumers are accustomed to ignoring. Future research should further probe effects of MRTP statements and how they vary by message source, channel and format.

Does the content and source credibility of health and risk messages related to nicotine vaping products have an impact on harm perception and behavioural intentions? A systematic review

AIMS

To systematically review the literature on (i) whether and how various risk messages about nicotine vaping products (NVPs) alter harm perception and behavioural intentions of smokers and non-smokers and (ii) how trust in sources of NVP risk communication affects message reception and behavioural intentions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for articles published up to April 2020. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies on message effects and cross-sectional studies on source credibility were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Evidence Project Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the quality of observational and intervention studies, respectively. For each outcome variable, we indicated whether there was an effect (as a 'yes' or 'no') and used effect direction plots to display information on the direction of effects.

RESULTS

Nicotine addiction messages resulted in greater health and addiction risk perceptions, relative risk messages comparing the health risks of NVPs to cigarette smoking increased the perception that NVPs are less harmful than combustible cigarettes, and a nicotine fact sheet corrected misperceptions of nicotine and NVPs. Smokers' intention to purchase, try or switch to NVPs was higher when exposed to a relative risk message and lower when exposed to nicotine addiction warnings. Trust in NVP risk information from public health agencies was associated with lower odds of; (i) NVP use and (ii) perceiving NVPs as less harmful, whereas those who trusted information from NVP companies were more likely to perceive NVPs as less harmful than combustible cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative risk messages may help improve the accuracy of harm perceptions of nicotine vaping products and increase smokers' intentions to quit smoking and/or to switch to vaping, although the literature is nascent.

Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products

BACKGROUND

Health messages on e-cigarette packs emphasise nicotine addiction or harms using similar wording to warnings on cigarette packs. These may not be appropriate for e-cigarettes which constitute a reduced risk alternative for smokers. This research aimed to (1) develop and test a selection of relative risk messages for e-cigarette products; (2) compare these to the two current EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) nicotine addiction messages; and (3) explore differences between smokers, non-smokers and dual users.

METHOD

Twenty-six messages focusing on either harm-reduction or cessation were developed and rated by multidisciplinary experts for accuracy, persuasiveness and clarity. The eight highest ranking messages were compared alongside the TPD messages in a sample of 983 European residents (316 smokers, 327 non-smokers, 340 dual users) on understandability, believability and convincingness.

RESULTS

On all three constructs combined, the two TPD messages rated the highest, closely followed by four relative risk messages "Completely switching to e-cigarettes lowers your risk of smoking related diseases", "Use of this product is much less harmful than smoking", "Completely switching to e-cigarettes is a healthier alternative to smoking", and "This product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes" which did not differ statistically from the TPD messages. Non-smokers rated TPD1 significantly higher overall than dual users. Dual users rated "This product is a safer alternative to smoking" significantly higher than non-smokers. Messages did not differ on understandability.

CONCLUSIONS

These alternative messages provide a useful resource for future research and for policy makers considering updating e-cigarette product labelling.

Implementation of e-cigarette regulation through the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2016) in Wales, Scotland and England from the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy introduction and enforcement

INTRODUCTION

From May 2016, the European Union introduced the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) regulations, which included restrictions to advertising and new safety and labeling standards for e-cigarette products. This represented the first supranational policy regulating e-cigarette sales and marketing. This study explores perceptions of TPD and its implementation in Wales, Scotland and England, from perspectives of stakeholders involved in tobacco and e-cigarette policy and implementation in each nation.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with 12 stakeholders from government and third sector organizations in the UK involved in tobacco control policy-making processes, and Trading Standards Officers from 13 UK local authorities. Data were analyzed thematically and a sub-sample double-coded.

RESULTS

Stakeholders held varying views of e-cigarettes, recognizing potential benefits and harms of both the products and the new policy actions. Nevertheless, most perceived TPD to be a positive step in introducing regulation for e-cigarettes. Compliance was perceived as high across nations, although stakeholders highlighted product adaptations to circumvent restrictions, and absence of controls on non-nicotine products. Budgetary and staffing limitations also meant that capacity to communicate new measures, and enforce change, was limited. This led to a gap occupied by industry representatives, who played a substantial role in preparing retailers for adoption of new measures.

CONCLUSIONS

TPD policy roll-out was largely perceived positively and as having been effectively implemented. However, contribution of industry to communication of new measures and absence of resourcing for effective communication perhaps introduced widespread innovations within regulations. While largely viewed positively, some refinements to device regulations were proposed.

Waterpipe Warning Placement and Risk Perceptions: An Eye Tracking Study

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to select a health warning message location on a waterpipe (WP) that both attracted visual attention and conveyed the risks associated with WP smoking. Methods: During June through November 2019, we conducted a within-subjects randomized experiment (N = 74) using eye tracking equipment to examine visual attention to 3 placements of a health warning on the WP (stem, water bowl, hose). We asked young adult ever WP users 3 questions about WP harm perceptions. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the amount of fixation time spent on the placement locations; we used repeated measures ANOVA to model changes in harm perceptions. Results: There were statistically significant differences across all 3 placement locations; regardless of place, all HWLs attracted a comparable amount of visual attention. Absolute WP harm perceptions significantly increased following the experiment and remained significantly higher at the one-week follow-up, compared to baseline. Conclusions: Warnings on WPs attracted visual attention and increased harm perceptions, and those harm perceptions remained high one week after the experiment. Findings indicate the value of including a warning on the WP device, and underscore the necessity and effectiveness of those health warnings to combat WP harm misperceptions.

The Neurosciences of Health Communication: An fNIRS Analysis of Prefrontal Cortex and Porn Consumption in Young Women for the Development of Prevention Health Programs

This work explores the use of fNIRS neuroimaging technique using young female college students with different levels of consumption of pornography, and the activation of the prefrontal cortex (cue reactivity) when viewing a pornographic clip (cue exposure) versus a control clip. The results indicate that the viewing of the pornographic clip (vs. control clip) causes an activation of Brodmann's area 45 of the right hemisphere (BA 45, pars triangularis) (p < 0.01). An effect also appears between the level of self-reported consumption and the activation of right BA 45: the higher the level of self-reported consumption, the greater the activation (p < 0.01). On the other hand, those participants who have never consumed pornographic material do not show activity of the right BA 45 compared to the control clip (p < 0.01) indicating a qualitative difference between non-consumers and consumers. These results are consistent with other research made in the field of addictions. It is hypothesized that the mirror neuron system may be involved, through the mechanism of empathy, which could provoke vicarious eroticism. Finally, we suggest the applications that these results may have for primary and secondary prevention programs in the field of problematic consumption of pornography.

A Qualitative Exploration of Consumers' Perceived Impacts, Behavioural Reactions, and Future Reflections of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2017) as Applied to Electronic Cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarette regulations included in the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), Article 20, implemented in Europe by May 2017, aimed to improve safety for e-cigarette consumers, and prevent uptake among non-smokers, particularly young people. Before implementation, there were significant concerns from consumers, industry, and some in the scientific community about the potential negative impact of the TPD on people using e-cigarettes to remain abstinent from smoking. To date, there is limited evidence on how the TPD has affected consumers. This study aimed to add insight into how consumers perceived and experienced the regulations.

METHODS

Qualitative data, collected between March 2018 and March 2019, relating to participant views of the TPD were extracted from 160 interviews/extended surveys of e-cigarette consumers as part of a wider study into e-cigarette use trajectories (ECtra study). Data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Awareness of the TPD among consumers was not universal. Participants' smoking behaviour did not appear to be influenced by the legislation. Participants were reassured by manufacturing regulations and requirements for ingredients labels. Participants responded negatively to changes perceived to cause inconvenience and extra plastic waste. The product restrictions prompted some participants to purchase non-compliant products illegally, potentially putting their safety at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette regulation should focus on ensuring product safety. Raising awareness of the TPD among consumers and smokers could be beneficial.