Smokers' Exposure to Perceived Modified Risk Claims for E-Cigarettes, Snus, and Smokeless Tobacco in the United States

Effects of exposure to snus marketing with versus without modified risk tobacco product claims on snus use intention and perceived harm among young adults

BACKGROUND

We tested whether snus marketing with modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims: (a) promotes accurate knowledge about snus's health effects in young adults and (b) encourages use intentions in only those who use combustible tobacco without attracting other young adult populations.

METHODS

A randomised between-subjects experiment was embedded in a 2020 web survey of participants from Los Angeles (aged 19-23 years). Participants viewed mass-marketed snus advertising materials with (n=1212) vs without (n=1225) US Food and Drug Administration-authorised MRTP claims. After advertising exposure, snus use intention and perceptions of snus harms relative to cigarettes or e-cigarettes were measured.

RESULTS

Advertisements with versus without MRTP claims did not affect snus use intention (18.0% vs 19.4%) but produced a higher prevalence of perceptions that snus was less harmful than cigarettes (12.6% vs 9.1%; p=0.007) and e-cigarettes (8.0% vs 5.8%; p=0.04). MRTP claim exposure effects did not differ by past 30-day e-cigarette or combustible tobacco use. Snus use intentions after marketing exposure, collapsed across MRTP claim conditions, were higher in those who did versus did not report past 30-day use of e-cigarettes (38.4% vs 14.3%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.95 (2.28 to 3.81); p<0.001) or combustible tobacco (44.0% vs 16.2%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.26 (1.62 to 3.16); p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although some young adults who vape or smoke may have snus use intentions, snus MRTP claims might not affect young adults' snus use intentions, regardless of whether they vape/smoke. MRTP claims might modestly increase the accuracy of perceived harms of snus relative to cigarettes while also slightly causing unsubstantiated perceptions of lower harm than e-cigarettes.

Smokers' perception of the comparative health risks of cigarettes, e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products: a survey among the German population

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products can pose different health risks (harm continuum). As current tobacco smokers could benefit from switching to less harmful products, we aimed to assess current smokers' perceived comparative health risks of these three products and to explore associations between risk perceptions and specific user characteristics.

METHODS

We analysed data from 11 waves (2019-2021; N = 5657 current tobacco smokers) of a representative, cross-sectional household survey conducted in Germany. Associations were assessed with multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

55.2% of smokers (95%CI = 53.8-56.5%) ranked cigarettes as the most harmful product. 36.1% of smokers (95%CI = 34.8-37.3%) perceived e-cigarettes and 33.8% (95%CI = 32.5-35.0%) heated tobacco products as more harmful than cigarettes. Misperceptions that e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products are more harmful to health than cigarettes increased over the 3-year study period and were more common among those with lower educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Only half of current tobacco smokers in Germany perceive the comparative health risks of cigarettes adequately and such misperceptions have increased recently. As current smokers could benefit most from switching to less harmful products, educational campaigns are needed to inform this group about the health risks of tobacco smoking and the comparative health risks of the various nicotine and tobacco products along the harm continuum.

Efficacy of smokeless tobacco for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Smoking remains prevalent in many countries despite rigorous tobacco control strategies. The use of Swedish snus, a type of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco, has been promoted as a tobacco harm reduction strategy.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Three databases were searched for studies that assessed the effectiveness of snus in promoting smoking abstinence. A total of 28 studies were reviewed (5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 7 longitudinal and 16 cross-sectional studies).

DATA EXTRACTION

Separate meta-analyses were conducted by study type, pooling effect estimates where outcome measures and design were sufficiently comparable. Study details and quality assessment (Risk of Bias 2 for RCTs, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies) are provided for each study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

While the meta-analysis of RCTs did not show a significant association between snus use and smoking cessation (risk ratio (RR)=1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.47 and RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.41), the results of the meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies (RR=1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82, p=0.022) and cross-sectional studies (OR=1.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.72, p=0.001) indicated that use of snus was associated with an increased likelihood of quitting or having quit smoking. There was significant heterogeneity in the cross-sectional studies, and leave-one-out analysis indicated that the longitudinal cohort results were driven by one study. Most studies examined were subject to an elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There is weak evidence for the use of snus for smoking cessation. Better RCTs and longitudinal studies are needed; meanwhile, existing cessation aids may be better placed than snus to promote abstinence.

Perceived Truthfulness of Reduced Lung Cancer Risk Advertising Claims Influences Consumers' Intention to try and to Purchase Snus

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of a reduced risk claim about lung cancer, presented in various formats, on smokers' and non-smokers' interest in trying Camel Snus and intention to purchase Camel Snus. We varied claim formats by varying advertising messages for Camel Snus in 4 ways (1) text only; (2) bar chart; (3) text/testimonial; and (4) bar chart/testimonial. 3001 participants were recruited from a web-based consumer specialty panel via an email invitation. In 2015, a second study was conducted, using similar methods, where 3001 additional participants were recruited. Overall, controlling for other factors, the presence of an MRTP claim was not significantly related to interest in trying snus [X2 (4) = 8.567, P = .073], or purchase intentions [X2 (4) = 1.148, P = .887]. Relative to a control ad where no explicit health risk claim was made, the Graphic + testimonial [OR = 1.29] or Text only [OR = 1.41] claims did significantly increase interest in trying Camel Snus. However, the adverting format did not impact interest in purchasing Camel Snus. While current smokeless tobacco users (95%) and smokers (59%) expressed interest in trying Camel Snus, non-tobacco users (7%) showed low interest in trying or purchasing Camel Snus (P < .001). Interest in trying Camel Snus was stronger in younger smokers compared to older smokers. Among current smokers, worry about lung cancer (the key focus of the reduced risk claim) was not associated with interest in trying Camel Snus or with purchase intention [OR = .91, 95% CI: .72, 1.14] or intention to purchase snus [OR = 1.07, 95% CI: .86, 1.32]. Future research should evaluate how claim and messaging formats influence perceived truthfulness and whether this effect differs among sub-groups of consumers, such as adolescents, those with tobacco-related disease, and former smokers. It will also be helpful to understand whether perceptions of ad truthfulness result in changes in product use patterns over time. In sum, giving people truthful, credible information about relative product risks, such as through authorized MRTP claims, is important, but such information is likely insufficient to get smokers to switch.

Effects of Modified Tobacco Risk Products with Claims and Nicotine Features on Perceptions among Racial and Ethnic Groups

Research suggests consumers may misunderstand modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. We examined the effects of nicotine content across four tobacco products with and without MRTP claims among a racially and ethnically diverse sample of adults who do and do not smoke. Adults (n = 1484) aged 21-65 completed an online experiment using a 2 × 2 × 4 mixed factorial design to examine the effects of tobacco product (Classic White Snus, IQOS, JUUL e-cigarette, and VLN cigarette) and nicotine content (high vs. low) stratified by MRTP claim (present vs. absent) across four outcomes: (1) likely to try (2) serious disease if used regularly, (3) least addictive, and (4) ease of quitting smoking. Not including an MRTP claim resulted in an increased likelihood of trying a product, decreased concern of serious disease, lower perceived addictiveness, and increased ease of quitting smoking. Participants selected low nicotine IQOS without a claim as the least likely to cause serious disease. Low nicotine JUUL, without a claim, was selected as least addictive and most likely to facilitate quitting. Intentions to try were highest for low nicotine JUUL. Participants selected low-nicotine products as less addictive than high nicotine products. Regulatory efforts should consider how MRTP claims interact with different product characteristics. Subtle differences exist across outcomes between racial and ethnic groups, which indicates that further research is warranted.

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.

Exposure to e-cigarette health claims and association with e-cigarette use and risk perceptions: A cohort study of young adults

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarettes have been marketed illicitly as smoking cessation aids and reduced risk tobacco products in the United States. Our study assessed consumers' exposure to such claims and evaluated their impact on relative risk perceptions and e-cigarette use.

METHODS

Data are from the Assessment of the post-College Experience study, which followed a cohort of young adults since 2010 when they were college freshmen. We used data from survey waves 10 (fall 2017) through 14 (fall 2019) to assess past 6 month exposure to e-cigarette marketing that made smoking cessation or modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. Logistic regression models examined if exposure to claims at waves 11 through 14 were predictors of e-cigarette use and relative risk perceptions at wave 14.

RESULTS

Exposure to MRTP (28.4% to 40.1%) and cessation claims (29.1% to 46.6%) increased, with participants reporting more exposure to cessation than MRTP claims at each wave. Multiple exposures were associated with perceptions that e-cigarettes are less harmful compared to cigarettes (Cessation: AOR = 1.12, CI: 1.01-1.23; p = 0.025; MRTP: AOR = 1.16; CI: 1.05-1.29; p = 0.003). Neither claim type was associated with past 30-day e-cigarette use. Claim exposure did not increase e-cigarette initiation among never e-cigarette users. However, current cigarette smokers who had never used e-cigarettes at wave 10 had 2.5 higher odds of initiating e-cigarette use by wave 14 for each exposure to a cessation claim (AOR = 2.53; CI: 1.43-4.45; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults reported increasing exposure to unauthorized e-cigarette health claims. Exposure was associated with reduced relative risk perceptions, but was not associated with past 30-day e-cigarette use. Cessation claims may motivate current cigarette smokers to try e-cigarettes.

Smokers' and Young Adult Non-Smokers' Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages

Although no tobacco products are safe, tobacco companies in the United States may request regulatory authorization to make certain “modified risk tobacco product” (MRTP) claims in their marketing. However, few qualitative studies have explored consumer perceptions and understanding of comparative risk messages and wordings. We examined consumer perceptions of statements indicating reduced risks and exposure to chemicals from snus and e-cigarettes relative to smoking. We conducted 12 focus groups with adult smokers (ages 21–66) and young adult (YA) non-smokers (ages 18–25) (n = 57) in the USA in 2019. Participants shared reactions to modified risk and exposure messages and message variations. Participants largely understood claims, including language about “switching completely.” However, participants expressed desire for more message specificity, evidence, risk reduction reasons, and statistics/quantitative information. Claim believability and acceptance was also limited by existing negative product beliefs and experiences, negative media reports, and skepticism about message source. YAs did not express product interest based on message exposure. Some YAs suggested the included “smoker” language made the messages less interesting/relevant. Given existing proposals for and use of MRTP messages, additional research on their wording, framing, delivery, and effects may help inform regulatory or organizational decisions about such messages, optimize potential benefits, and mitigate unintended consequences.