The Effect of Comparatively-Framed versus Similarity-Framed E-Cigarette and Snus Print Ads on Young Adults' Ad and Product Perceptions

Effects of IQOS health warnings and modified risk claims among young adult cigarette smokers and non-smokers

INTRODUCTION

Heated tobacco products, including Marlboro IQOS, are available globally. In the USA, IQOS was authorised to be advertised with claims about reduced toxicant exposure relative to cigarettes. The effects of such modified risk claims and health warnings have not been studied among young adult cigarette smokers and non-smokers.

METHODS

In 2020, US young adult (18-30 years, n=1328) cigarette smokers and non-smokers viewed an IQOS ad in a 4 (modified risk claim variations or none) by 3 (warning variations or none) between-subjects experiment. Outcome measures assessed perceived credibility and effectiveness of the health or risk message for discouraging IQOS use, perceived harms, efficacy beliefs, and IQOS use intentions.

RESULTS

Smokers reported significantly higher (p<0.05) perceived credibility, lower perceived effectiveness, higher efficacy beliefs about switching to IQOS and higher intentions to use IQOS than non-smokers. Among smokers, health warnings increased perceived credibility (p<0.001) and effectiveness (p<0.05), but claims did not affect outcomes examined. Among non-smokers, warnings and claims increased perceived credibility, and warnings increased perceived effectiveness (p<0.003). The reduced exposure claim increased non-smokers' intentions to use IQOS (b=0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Among young adult smokers, health warnings increased perceived effectiveness at discouraging IQOS use and perceived credibility. Among non-smokers, warnings and claims increased perceived credibility and warnings increased perceived effectiveness, but the Food and Drug Administration-authorised reduced exposure claim increased intentions to use IQOS. Research is warranted to understand how the content of modified risk claims and health warnings for IQOS affects IQOS use in this population.

Correlates of U.S. Young adults’ awareness of alcohol use as a behavioral risk factor for cancer

Although alcohol increases the risk of cancer, awareness of alcohol-related cancer risks is low. Alcohol use is prevalent among young adults, and understanding factors associated with awareness and perceptions of alcohol-related cancer risks in this group is critical for cancer prevention efforts. We examined the demographic, tobacco, and alcohol related correlates of young adults’ awareness and perceptions of alcohol as a behavioral risk factor for cancer. We completed a secondary analysis of data collected in February 2020 in the U.S. from 1,328 young adults (ages 18–30) who completed a cross-sectional online survey. Participants reported (1) awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer and (2) perceived risks of serious disease such as cancer. We analyzed demographic characteristics, alcohol use, and tobacco use associated with these outcome variables using multivariable regression. Overall, 18.5% of participants believed that alcohol does not increase cancer risk. Perceived cancer risk associated with alcohol use was moderate (M 3.2, SD 1.6, 1–7 scale). In multivariable analysis, awareness of risk was significantly higher among those with higher socioeconomic status. Perceived risk was significantly greater among those with higher socioeconomic status, higher alcohol consumption, and a history of tobacco use. These findings indicate research is warranted to better understand awareness of alcohol as a behavioral risk factor for cancer and associated beliefs in subgroups of young adults to help guide the development of interventions to raise awareness of the risks of cancer associated with alcohol use.

An experimental study of messages communicating potential harms of electronic cigarettes

There has been an upsurge of e-cigarette use in the United States in recent years. While e-cigarettes may contain lower levels of toxic chemicals than combusted cigarettes, they still pose serious health hazards, including increased risk for heart and respiratory disease. Despite these risks, public awareness of the health harms of e-cigarettes remains low. Thus, it is important to educate the public about the potential harms of e-cigarettes. This study took themes commonly found in antismoking messages and used them to develop messages about harms of e-cigarettes. A national sample of 2801 current smokers and nonsmokers (aged 18+ years) were randomized to view one of four e-cigarette messages (harmful effect of chemicals, uncertainty about ingredients, distrust of big tobacco, or cost of vaping) or a control message (bottled water ad). Participants' reactions to the messages and behavioral intentions were assessed immediately following the exposure. MANOVA examined effects of the messages on blocks of the outcome variables and univariate analyses estimated adjusted means for each experimental condition for each outcome. The message about harmful chemicals was perceived as the most informative and effective and elicited the highest levels of negative emotions (Ps<0.05). However, on measures of actual effectiveness, the other messages performed equally well. Specifically, messages with different themes (harmful chemicals, uncertainty about ingredients, anti-industry, or financial cost) increased perceived risk of e-cigarettes, support for e-cigarette control, and lowered self-exempting beliefs and intentions to use e-cigarettes (Ps<0.05). Themes commonly used in anti-smoking messages may be effective in educating the public about the potential harm of e-cigarettes. The observed differential effects of the messages suggest the need to use multiple themes in a public education campaign about e-cigarettes.

E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information

Introduction

Given the lack of regulation on marketing of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States and the increasing exchange of e-cigarette-related information online, it is critical to understand how e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and how the public engages with e-cigarette information.

Methods

Results are from a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on e-cigarettes via a PubMed search through June 1, 2017. Search terms included: "e-cigarette*" or "electronic cigarette" or "electronic cigarettes" or "electronic nicotine delivery" or "vape" or "vaping." Experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, and mixed methods studies providing empirical findings on e-cigarette marketing and communication (ie, nonmarketing communication in the public) were included.

Results

One hundred twenty-four publications on e-cigarette marketing and communication were identified. They covered topics including e-cigarette advertisement claims/promotions and exposure/receptivity, the effect of e-cigarette advertisements on e-cigarette and cigarette use, public engagement with e-cigarette information, and the public's portrayal of e-cigarettes. Studies show increases in e-cigarette marketing expenditures and online engagement through social media over time, that e-cigarettes are often framed as an alternative to combustible cigarettes, and that e-cigarette advertisement exposure may be associated with e-cigarette trial in adolescents and young adults.

Discussion

Few studies examine the effects of e-cigarette marketing on perceptions and e-cigarette and cigarette use. Evidence suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertisements affects perceptions and trial of e-cigarettes, but there is no evidence that exposure affects cigarette use. No studies examined how exposure to e-cigarette communication, particularly misleading or inaccurate information, impacts e-cigarette, and tobacco use behaviors.

Implications

The present article provides a comprehensive review of e-cigarette marketing and how the public engages with e-cigarette information. Studies suggest an association between exposure to e-cigarette marketing and lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, intention to use e-cigarettes, and e-cigarette trial, highlighting the need to for advertising regulations that support public health goals. Findings from this review also present the methodological limitations of the existing research (primarily due to cross-sectional and correlational analyses) and underscore the need for timely, rigorous research to provide an accurate understanding of e-cigarette marketing and communication and its impact on e-cigarette and tobacco product use.

Social Influence in the Uptake and Use of Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

E-cigarettes were introduced to support smoking cessation, but their popularity has increased among nonsmokers, challenging current perspectives on their safety and effectiveness as a public health intervention. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize current evidence on the influence of social factors on e-cigarette intentions and use.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched for studies of the effects of social factors on e-cigarette intention or use in February 2019. Studies were included if they used experimental, longitudinal, qualitative, or mixed methods designs. Advertising, social interactions, and social norms were considered as social factors; social media was considered a conduit for other social factors. Two reviewers screened all studies; bias risk was evaluated for all RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This review included 43 studies: 9 experimental, 11 longitudinal, 22 qualitative, and 1 mixed method. All experimental studies examined advertising and consistently showed that exposure increased intentions to use e-cigarettes. Evidence of the influence of social interactions and social norms came from longitudinal and qualitative studies, suggesting that these factors could increase e-cigarette use. Most participants were nonsmokers (81%; 22,233 of 27,303). Studies rarely considered differences in the effects of social factors on smokers and nonsmokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the increased popularity among nonsmokers and the potential for advertising to increase e-cigarette use, closer public health monitoring of e-cigarette uptake by nonsmokers is warranted. Future primary research should be designed to measure how social factors affect smokers and nonsmokers differently.

Testing messages about comparative risk of electronic cigarettes and combusted cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Health agencies are grappling with communicating risks of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) compared with combusted cigarettes. This study examined smokers' responses to two types of comparative risk messages with one type incorporating more negative antismoking elements in the design.

METHODS

In an online experiment, 1400 US adult (18+ years) current smokers and recent quitters were randomised to view one of three comparative risk messages about e-cigarettes (CR messages), one of three comparative risk messages that included more negative antismoking elements in the design (CR- messages) or a control message. Selection of outcomes was guided by the antismoking message impact framework. Multivariate analyses of covariance and logistic regression models analysed effects of messages on message evaluations, e-cigarette-related and cigarette-related beliefs and behavioural intentions.

RESULTS

Both CR and CR- messages decreased smokers' intentions to smoke cigarettes, increased intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and increased perceptions that e-cigarettes are less harmful than combusted cigarettes. Neither message type increased dual use intentions relative to exclusive e-cigarettes use or smoking cessation. CR messages decreased perceived absolute risks of e-cigarettes and self-exempting beliefs about smoking, whereas CR- versus CR messages produced higher self-efficacy to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Comparative risk communication might encourage smokers to switch to lower-harm tobacco products. Comparative risk messages with more negative antismoking elements in the design might be particularly effective, because they led to higher self-efficacy to quit smoking. Regulatory agencies may consider using comparative risk messages with more negative antismoking elements to educate the public about lower risk of e-cigarettes.

'The lesser devil you don't know': a qualitative study of smokers' responses to messages communicating comparative risk of electronic and combusted cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Communicating to smokers that e-cigarettes deliver lower levels of harmful chemicals than combusted cigarettes is a challenging issue. This study qualitatively explored smokers' interpretations of messages communicating the risk of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes (comparative risk messages).

METHOD

We developed 12 print comparative risk messages and evaluated them in 12 focus groups with 72 adult smokers (18+ years old) in Atlanta, Georgia.

RESULTS

Participants interpreted uncertainty about health effects of e-cigarettes as an indicator of significant unknown risks, which some believed to be potentially more severe than the known effects of cigarettes (such as cancer and heart disease). Also, participants were sceptical about the lower risk claims. Some participants misinterpreted what 'switching completely' or 'switching 100% of the time' means, perceiving switching from e-cigarettes to combusted cigarettes as comparable with the use of both products. When chemicals in e-cigarettes were mentioned (eg, nicotine or formaldehyde), participants viewed e-cigarettes as very harmful and had difficulty reconciling this belief with the reduced risk claim. Comparative risk messages emphasising smoking risks were perceived as effective. Participants also appreciated being given an option to switch if they cannot quit. Participants suggested the inclusion of more facts and statistics and a credible message source (eg, public health agencies) to increase message effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Comparative risk messages may be more acceptable to smokers if they show direct comparisons of the number of toxic chemicals in cigarettes and e-cigarettes, are attributed to a credible source(s), and emphasise smoking risks.

Psychological distress and responses to comparative risk messages about electronic and combusted cigarettes

BACKGROUND

People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD.

DISCUSSION

Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.

How and Why Consumers View "Little Cigars" as Legally-Defined Cigarettes

Objective

To test if consumers perceive filtered "little cigars" as legally-defined cigarettes and identify features they associate with cigarettes but not little cigars and vice versa.

Methods

1,030 adults (mean age 31.1 years, 34% male, 25% non-white) were randomized in a 2×2 between-subjects experiment to view images of filtered "little cigars" that varied by package labeling (cigars: yes/no) and the product displayed in front of the packaging (filtered "little cigar" or cigarette). Measures assessed participants' perceptions that the product shown can be used as a substitute for cigarettes and features perceived to be associated with cigarettes vs. little cigars.

Results

Participants perceived filtered "little cigars" as substitutes for cigarettes, perceived certain features to be more like little cigars (e.g., no filter/tip, wrapped in tobacco leaf) and others to be more like cigarettes (e.g., filtered, could be inhaled deeply). In analysis of covariance assessing experimental condition effects, participants viewing images of cigarettes had stronger perceptions that filtered "little cigars" could be used as cigarette substitutes and had cigarette characteristics, but the effect was small.

Conclusions

This study provides new evidence that filtered "little cigars" are perceived by consumers as cigarettes under current laws and identifies features distinguishing little cigars from cigarettes.

Targeted Versus Nontargeted Communication About Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems in Three Smoker Groups

Background: This study used an audience segmentation and message targeting approach to identify three distinct smoker groups-Older Freedom Smokers (OFS), Reluctant Smokers (RS), and Young Enthusiasts (YE)-and examined whether an electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) message targeting each smoker group (targeted message) was associated with more health-enhancing outcomes than messages targeting other groups (nontargeted messages). Methods: An online experiment was conducted among 580 adult smokers with 180 OFS, 200 RS, and 200 YE. Each smoker group viewed a targeted message and two nontargeted messages in a random order. Following the presentation of each message, participants reported their perceived message effectiveness, message reactions, ENDS- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions. Results: The targeted vs. nontargeted messages mostly did not produce more health-enhancing outcomes on perceptions of absolute and comparative risks of ENDS and cigarettes, response efficacy of ENDS, and self-efficacy as well as intentions to quit smoking. Conclusions: Our targeted messages did not appear to be a better choice over nontargeted messages to communicate about ENDS to smokers. Given the increasing call to accurately inform the public of the risk differences among various tobacco products, future studies should continue to explore whether targeted messages could be employed to communicate about the comparative risks of ENDS.