Assessing the impact of messages about reduced nicotine cigar products among people who use little cigar and cigarillo: Insights from a discrete choice experiment.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Nicotine & Tobacco Research Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntaf012
Charity A Ntansah, Lucy Popova, James W Hardin, Minji Kim, Kymberle L Sterling, Reed M Reynolds, Emily E Hackworth, David L Ashley, Katherine C Henderson, Bo Yang, James F Thrasher
{"title":"Assessing the impact of messages about reduced nicotine cigar products among people who use little cigar and cigarillo: Insights from a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Charity A Ntansah, Lucy Popova, James W Hardin, Minji Kim, Kymberle L Sterling, Reed M Reynolds, Emily E Hackworth, David L Ashley, Katherine C Henderson, Bo Yang, James F Thrasher","doi":"10.1093/ntr/ntaf012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) pursuit of a low nicotine standard for cigarettes raises concerns that a focus on cigarettes may encourage people to use other combusted tobacco products, undermining the policy's effectiveness. The FDA is considering expanding the policy to include cigar products, which will require effective messages for people who use those products.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2022, a discrete choice experiment was conducted with African American males and females and white males and females. Participants (n=1,722), aged 18-44 years and who had smoked little cigar and cigarillos (LCC) in the past 30 days, evaluated seven message attributes about reduced nicotine content (RNC) LCCs (presence or absence of information on source, chemicals, harm, nicotine, addiction, quitting efficacy, and enjoyment) across 20 choice sets. Participants assessed two of three outcomes: affect towards the policy, perceived harm of RNC LCCs, and motivation to quit smoking LCCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Messages listing the FDA as the source were selected as eliciting more positive affect towards the policy, increasing perceived harm and motivation to quit smoking LCCs. Source was the most influential attribute for selecting messages in terms of positive affect towards the policy and motivation to quit. Chemicals and harm attributes had the most substantial effect on selecting messages as increasing perceived harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Citing the FDA as a source may improve the perceived effectiveness of RNC communications for people who use LCCs. Misperceptions about presumed lower harms of RNC products can be corrected with information about their harm and chemical properties.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Our findings among people who use LCCs suggest that source information shown as the FDA logo can increase message effectiveness while also influencing risk perceptions and motivation to quit smoking LCCs. To address misperceptions about RNC LCC harms, educational messages should particularly consider incorporating information about chemicals and harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":19241,"journal":{"name":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaf012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) pursuit of a low nicotine standard for cigarettes raises concerns that a focus on cigarettes may encourage people to use other combusted tobacco products, undermining the policy's effectiveness. The FDA is considering expanding the policy to include cigar products, which will require effective messages for people who use those products.

Methods: In 2022, a discrete choice experiment was conducted with African American males and females and white males and females. Participants (n=1,722), aged 18-44 years and who had smoked little cigar and cigarillos (LCC) in the past 30 days, evaluated seven message attributes about reduced nicotine content (RNC) LCCs (presence or absence of information on source, chemicals, harm, nicotine, addiction, quitting efficacy, and enjoyment) across 20 choice sets. Participants assessed two of three outcomes: affect towards the policy, perceived harm of RNC LCCs, and motivation to quit smoking LCCs.

Results: Messages listing the FDA as the source were selected as eliciting more positive affect towards the policy, increasing perceived harm and motivation to quit smoking LCCs. Source was the most influential attribute for selecting messages in terms of positive affect towards the policy and motivation to quit. Chemicals and harm attributes had the most substantial effect on selecting messages as increasing perceived harm.

Conclusions: Citing the FDA as a source may improve the perceived effectiveness of RNC communications for people who use LCCs. Misperceptions about presumed lower harms of RNC products can be corrected with information about their harm and chemical properties.

Implications: Our findings among people who use LCCs suggest that source information shown as the FDA logo can increase message effectiveness while also influencing risk perceptions and motivation to quit smoking LCCs. To address misperceptions about RNC LCC harms, educational messages should particularly consider incorporating information about chemicals and harms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估关于减少尼古丁雪茄产品的信息对使用小雪茄和小雪茄的人的影响:来自离散选择实验的见解。
导读:美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)对香烟的低尼古丁标准的追求引发了人们的担忧,即关注香烟可能会鼓励人们使用其他燃烧烟草产品,从而破坏政策的有效性。FDA正在考虑将该政策扩大到雪茄产品,这将需要向使用这些产品的人提供有效的信息。方法:于2022年对非裔美国男性和女性以及白人男性和女性进行离散选择实验。参与者(n=1,722),年龄在18-44岁之间,在过去30天内抽过少量雪茄和小雪茄(LCC),在20个选择集中评估关于降低尼古丁含量(RNC) LCC的7个信息属性(存在或不存在有关来源、化学物质、危害、尼古丁、成瘾、戒烟效果和享受的信息)。参与者评估了三个结果中的两个:对政策的影响,RNC低成本香烟的感知危害,以及戒烟的动机。结果:以FDA为来源的信息被选择为对政策产生更积极的影响,增加了感知到的危害和戒烟的动机。在对政策的积极影响和戒烟动机方面,来源是选择信息的最具影响力的属性。化学物质和危害属性对选择增加感知危害的信息有最实质性的影响。结论:引用FDA作为来源可能会提高使用lcc的人对RNC通信的感知有效性。通过提供有关RNC产品危害和化学性质的信息,可以纠正对其假定危害较低的误解。启示:我们在使用低脂香烟的人群中发现,显示为FDA标志的来源信息可以提高信息的有效性,同时也影响风险认知和戒烟动机。为了消除对RNC LCC危害的误解,教育信息应特别考虑纳入有关化学品及其危害的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
268
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Nicotine & Tobacco Research is one of the world''s few peer-reviewed journals devoted exclusively to the study of nicotine and tobacco. It aims to provide a forum for empirical findings, critical reviews, and conceptual papers on the many aspects of nicotine and tobacco, including research from the biobehavioral, neurobiological, molecular biologic, epidemiological, prevention, and treatment arenas. Along with manuscripts from each of the areas mentioned above, the editors encourage submissions that are integrative in nature and that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal is sponsored by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT). It publishes twelve times a year.
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Reducing Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in the Home: A Qualitative Study With Palestinian-Arab Women in Israel. The Impact of Three Alternate Nicotine-Delivery Products on Combusted Cigarette Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Impact of Menthol Cigarette Bans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Reactions to a Hypothetical Ban of Open-System Electronic Cigarettes Among People Who Currently Use Electronic Cigarettes. Trends in Exclusive Non-Cigarette Tobacco Smoking in England: A Population Survey 2013-2023.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1