Smokers' and Young Adult Non-Smokers' Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages
- PMID: 32961924
- PMCID: PMC7558440
- DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186807
Smokers' and Young Adult Non-Smokers' Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages
Abstract
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.
Keywords: communication; e-cigarettes; modified risk tobacco products; product perceptions; smokeless tobacco; snus; tobacco harm reduction; tobacco regulatory science.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
-
- Levy D.T., Mumford E.A., Cummings K.M., Gilpin E.A., Giovino G., Hyland A., Sweanor D., Warner K.E. The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: Estimates of a panel of experts. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2004;13:2035–2042. - PubMed
-
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. National Academies Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2018. - PubMed
-
- McNeill A., Brose L.S., Calder R., Bauld L., Robson D. Evidence Review of E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products 2018. Public Health England; London, UK: 2018. p. 6.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
