Assessing the effect of public health information by incentivised risk estimation: An example on Swedish snus

Intention to purchase alternative tobacco products as a function of smoking status and responses to advertising, packaging, and sensory experiences

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco manufacturers design and marketed products with appealing sensory characteristics to drive product uptake and continued use. We assessed smokers' and non-smokers' cognitive, affective, and sensory responses to Camel Snus (CS) and Nicotine gum (NG) to gauge future intentions to use.

METHOD

In a single laboratory session, 348 participants (including current smokers and nonsmokers in Buffalo, NY and Boston, MA) were exposed to CS and NG products in counterbalanced order. Exposure involved a cumulative set of 3 steps in which participants i) viewed an advertisement; ii) viewed the packaging, and iii) touched and smelled the product, without actual use. Current daily and non-daily smokers were invited to undertake a fourth exposure step by sampling the product. Following product exposure, participants completed perception measures and reported future intentions to use either product at the end of the survey. After each exposure, participants' reported feelings of valence and arousal.

RESULTS

Smokers reported greater preference to try NG (63.8%) compared with CS (17.4%) or neither (18.8%), whereas majority of nonsmokers preferred neither product (64.3%) (p < 0.01). Of those offered to sample the products, 78.3% daily smokers and 68.4% non-daily smokers opted to sample. When asked about intentions to try, a greater proportion of smokers stated a preference to try NG over CS, as did the small number of nonsmokers who expressed a preference.

CONCLUSION

Intentions to try CS were low despite different levels of exposure to product, and this low product appeal and interest in use may translate to limited potential of CS to serve as a reduced harm product for smokers.

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

Background: Most studies on perceived risks of smokeless tobacco products (SLT) have been conducted in the U.S., and the vast majority conclude that perceptions of the relative harmfulness of SLT versus cigarettes in the population are inconsistent with epidemiologically-based risk estimates, and typically conflated to that of cigarettes. We tested whether such inaccuracies also existed in Norway, where SLT-products are less toxic (Swedish snus) and SLT use is more prevalent than in the U.S. Methods: Over a 16 years period (2003⁻2018), 13,381 respondents (aged 16⁻79 years) answered questions about risk perceptions in Statistics Norway's nationally representative survey of tobacco behavior. We applied an indirect measure of comparative harm where risk beliefs for eight nicotine products were assessed independently of other products and then compared the answers. The wording of the question was: "We will now mention a variety of nicotine products and ask you how harmful you think daily use of these are. Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is slightly harmful and 7 is very harmful". Mean scores with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: The overall risk score for cigarettes was 6.48. The risk score for snus was 5.14⁻79.3% of the risk score of cigarettes. The relative risk scores for e-cigarettes (3.78) and NRT products (3.39) was 58.4% and 52.3% when compared to cigarettes. Perceptions of risk were stable over time. A strong association was observed between perceived risk of snus and having used snus in attempts to quit smoking. Conclusion: Perceptions of relative risk between snus and cigarettes is inconsistent with estimates from medical expert committees, which assess the overall health risk from use of Swedish snus to be minor when compared to the risk from smoking. Like the situation in the US, incorrect beliefs about SLT risks seem to be prevalent also in the snus-prevalent Norwegian setting. Accurate information on differential harms needs to be communicated. Future research should try to identify reasons why health authorities in the US and Scandinavia allow these well-documented misconceptions to persist.