Australian smokers' experiences and perceptions of recessed and firm filter cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette filter modifications have long been used to increase product appeal and assuage health concerns, tighter marketing restrictions, including plain packaging, have further spurred the growth of filter variants. We explored and assessed experiences and perceptions of smokers who had tried and/or currently use recessed filter cigarettes (RFCs) and firm filter cigarettes (FFCs). METHOD: In November 2018, we undertook eight exploratory focus groups of Australian adult factory-made cigarette smokers (total n=56). In July 2019, we surveyed 999 smokers aged 18-69 years to quantify ever and current use of these products and associated beliefs and sensory experiences. RESULTS: Focus group and survey findings were consistent. Among 988 smokers who had at least tried factory-made cigarettes, 28.9% had tried FFCs and 11.1% currently smoked these, while 36.4% had tried RFCs and 7.5% currently smoked these. Smokers in both studies believed these filters may reduce harm and that FFCs increase appeal. In the survey, 58.9% of RFC triers agreed these hide the filter's brown stain and 48.9% agreed that RFCs keep harmful substances away from the mouth. Similarly, 58.4% of FFC triers agreed these trap more harmful substances than standard filters. Relative to standard filter cigarettes, more smokers experienced FFCs and RFCs as feeling clean (p=0.03) and more current FFC users experienced these as feeling smooth (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: RFCs and FFCs undermine plain packaging legislation, which aims to reduce appeal and minimise misperceptions about the relative harms of different tobacco products. Like other filter modifications, these filter variants should be disallowed.

Testing the effectiveness of alcohol health warning label formats: An online experimental study with Australian adult drinkers.

Health warning labels (HWLs) on alcohol containers may help reduce population-level alcohol consumption. However, few studies have examined the most effective formats for alcohol HWLs. This study tested the effects of three different types of alcohol HWLs. In an online experiment, N = 1,755 Australian adult drinkers were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (a) No HWL control; (b) DrinkWise control (industry-developed labels currently on some containers); (c) Text-Only HWLs; (d) Text + Pictogram HWLs; or (e) Text + Photograph HWLs. In the three intervention conditions, participants were exposed to eight HWLs, each depicting a different long-term harm. Exposure occurred during an initial session, and repeatedly over the subsequent eight days. Differences between conditions were assessed immediately following initial exposure and at nine-day follow-up. Compared to participants in the No HWL control, participants exposed to Text + Pictogram HWLs were more likely to have intentions to avoid drinking alcohol completely in the next month (post-exposure) and intentions to drink less alcohol in the next week (follow-up), and participants in all three intervention conditions reported stronger negative emotional arousal (follow-up) and weaker positive emotional arousal (follow-up). Compared to participants in the DrinkWise control, those exposed to Text + Pictogram HWLs had stronger intentions to drink less alcohol in the next week and intentions to avoid drinking alcohol completely in the next month (follow-up), participants in the Text + Photograph condition reported significantly weaker positive emotional arousal, and all three intervention conditions resulted in stronger negative emotional arousal. There would likely be benefits to public health if any of the three types of intervention HWLs were implemented. However, there is some evidence that Text + Pictogram HWLs should be recommended over Text-Only or Text + Photograph HWLs, given they were the only HWLs to increase intentions to drink less.

Australian Smokers' Sensory Experiences and Beliefs Associated with Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarettes.

Many current smokers incorrectly believe that menthol cigarettes are less harmful, likely due to the biological and sensory effects of menthol, which can lead smokers to have favourable sensory experiences. In this study, we measured the extent to which Australian smokers associate certain sensory experiences with smoking menthol and non-menthol cigarettes, and their beliefs about how damaging and enjoyable they find cigarettes with each of these sensory experiences. A sample of 999 Australian 18-69-year-old weekly smokers was recruited from a non-probability online panel; this study focuses on the 245 respondents who currently smoked menthol cigarettes at least once per week. Current menthol smokers were four to nine times more likely to experience menthol rather than non-menthol cigarettes as having favourable sensory experiences, including feeling smooth, being soothing on the throat, fresh-tasting and clean-feeling. Menthol smokers perceived cigarettes with these favourable sensations as less damaging and more enjoyable than cigarettes with the opposite more aversive sensory experience. Efforts to correct these misperceptions about risk will likely require messages that provide new information to help smokers understand that these sensations do not indicate a lower level of risk. Banning menthol in tobacco products-as has recently been done in some nations-would also be a timely and justified strategy for protecting consumers.