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

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.

Identifying factors that conjointly influence nicotine vaping product relative harm perception among smokers and recent ex-smokers: Findings from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey

BACKGROUND

Use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to replace smoking is often influenced by perceived harmfulness of these products relative to smoking. This study aimed to identify factors that conjointly influenced NVP relative harm perception among smokers and ex-smokers.

METHODS

Data (n = 11,838) from adult smokers and ex-smokers (quit < 2 years) who participated in the 2016 ITC 4 Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys in Australia, Canada, England and the US were analyzed. Decision tree models were used to classify respondents into those who perceived vaping as less harmful than smoking ("correct" perception) versus otherwise ("incorrect" perception) based on their socio-demographic, smoking and vaping related variables.

RESULTS

Decision tree analysis identified nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) harmfulness perceptions relative to smoking, perceived vaping portrayal in the media and other sources as positive, negative or balanced, recency of seeking online vaping information, and age as the key variables that interacted conjointly to classify respondents into those with "correct" versus "incorrect" harm perceptions of vaping relative to smoking (model performance accuracy = 0.70-0.74). In all countries, NRT relative harmfulness perception and vaping portrayal perception were consistently the two most important classifying variables, with other variables showing some country differences.

CONCLUSIONS

In all four countries, perception of NVP relative harmfulness among smokers and recent ex-smokers is strongly influenced by a combination of NRT relative harmfulness perception and vaping portrayal in the media and other sources. These conjoint factors can serve as useful markers for identifying subgroups more vulnerable to misperception about NVP relative harmfulness to benefit from corrective intervention.