Importance of Various E-Cigarette Device and E-Liquid Characteristics by Smoking Status among Young Adults Who Vape.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarette product characteristics are known to influence appeal among young adults. Understanding which characteristics appeal to individuals with (vs. without) a history of combusted tobacco use is essential for developing effective tobacco control policies. METHODS: Anonymous, self-report data were collected from young adults (18-30 years) who had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days (n = 295) online via Prolific from September-October 2019. Using a visual analogue scale (range: 0-100), participants rated the importance of ten e-cigarette device and nine e-liquid characteristics. Adjusted linear regression models were used to evaluate the association of combusted tobacco use status (never, former, current) with mean rating scores for each of the nineteen characteristics. RESULTS: The most important e-cigarette device characteristics were price (Mean = 81.1; [SD = 17.9]), size (Mean = 75.5 [SD = 20.9]), and hit strength (Mean = 73.8 [SD = 20.4]) while the most important e-liquid characteristics were flavor (M = 85.1 [SD = 16.3]), price (M = 80.9 [SD = 18.4]), and nicotine level (M = 77.8 [18.9]). Differences by combusted tobacco use status were observed for device brand, temperature/voltage, customizability, color, and popularity, with the highest ratings generally observed among those concurrently using combustible tobacco products. For e-liquids, differences by use status were observed for flavor, price, and bottle type. Notably, those concurrently using combusted products rated flavor as less important than those with no history of combustible tobacco use (B=-5.01[95%CI=-9.97, -0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: The self-rated importance of e-cigarette device and e-liquid attributes varies by combustible tobacco use status among young adults which may be used to inform regulatory decisions regarding e-cigarette product characteristics.

Differentiating Reasons for Young Adult E-cigarette Use Using Maximum Difference Choice Models.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the reasons young adults use e-cigarettes (ie, vape)-and whether these motivations vary across groups-is essential for informing tobacco regulatory efforts. AIMS AND METHODS: An online panel of young adults who vape (n = 230; age = 18-30 years) completed a maximum difference discrete choice task for 15 reasons for vaping. Over 9 choice sets, participants were presented a subset of 5 reasons and selected the most and least important. Hierarchical bayesian analysis estimated the relative importance of each reason. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified groups with similarly ranked reasons for use. Multinomial regression evaluated the association between sample characteristics and class membership. RESULTS: Overall, relaxation had the highest probability of being the most important reason for use (14.8%), followed by harm reduction (13.2%), and flavors (10.3%). LCA identified five distinct classes, based on top reasons for use: 1. cessation (cigarette cessation [20.2%]; n = 80); 2. dependence (relaxation [20.5%] and unable to quit [19.2%]; n = 21); 3. relaxation (relaxation [20.6%]; n = 66); 4. socializing (socializing [22.2%]; n = 27); and 5. variable (boredom [10.5%] and acceptability [10.2%]; n = 36). Participants who were older, smoked cigarettes, or vaped more frequently were more likely to belong to the cessation class while those who were younger or more e-cigarette dependent were more likely to belong to the dependence class. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived reasons why young adults vape are highly heterogeneous and dependent on the type of user. Tobacco regulatory efforts targeting distinct types of vapers are needed to minimize the adverse public health impact of vaping without compromising appeal for smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use remains high among young adults, with flavors, cost, and harm reduction (vs. combustible cigarettes) among the mostly commonly reported reasons for use. Yet, little is known about how relatively important these reasons are to the individual. Leveraging a maximum difference task, young adults' reasons for use were evaluated on a common interval scale and groups sharing similar reasons identified. Smoking cessation, dependence, relaxation, socialization, and boredom were respectively the most important reasons for use among five classes of vapers. E-cigarette regulatory policies should consider the distinct reasons for use as to not compromise their appeal for smoking cessation.

Role of affective reactivity induced by cigarette packaging including graphic warning labels: the CASA Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether three types of cigarette pack designs, including three versions of graphic warning label (GWL) plain packs, one GWL absent and branding absent pack (blank) and the smoker's own GWL absent and branding present pack (US), elicit different valence, type and levels of affect. DESIGN: US daily smokers (n=324) were asked to handle each of the five pack types and 'think aloud' their reactions. To avoid a muted familiarity response, exposure to their own US pack followed exposure to at least one GWL plain pack. Reactions were scored on a reactivity scale (-3 to +3) and the text was coded for speech polarity (-1 to +1) and emotive word frequency. RESULTS: Reactivity scores had excellent inter-rater reliability (agreement ≥86%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.89) and were correlated with speech polarity (r=0.21-0.37, p<0.001). When considering their US pack, approximately two-thirds of smokers had a low (31.5%) to medium (34.6%) positive response (reactivity=1.29; polarity=0.14) with expressed feelings of joy and trust. Blank packaging prompted a largely (65.4%) neutral response (reactivity=0.03; polarity=0.00). The gangrenous foot GWL provoked mostly medium (46.9%) to high (48.1%) negative responses (reactivity=-2.44; polarity=-0.20), followed by neonatal baby (reactivity=-1.85; polarity=-0.10) and throat cancer (reactivity=-1.76; polarity=-0.08) warnings. GWLs varied in their elicitation of disgust, anger, fear and sadness. CONCLUSION: Initial reactions to GWL packs, a blank pack, and smokers' current US pack reflected negative, neutral, and positive affect, respectively. Different versions of the GWL pack elicited different levels and types of immediate negative affect.

Evaluating US smokers' willingness to pay for different cigarette packaging designs before and after real-world exposure in a randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Removal of tobacco industry branding from cigarette packs may reduce their appeal. Adding graphic warning labels (GWLs) should enhance this effect. We investigate whether willingness to pay for various packaging designs changes after 3 months' use of: (1) US branded packs without GWLs (US), (2) non-branded packs without GWLs (Blank), and (3) rotating non-branded packs with GWLs (gangrene; throat cancer; neonatal baby) covering >75% of pack (GWL). METHODS: Californian adult daily smokers not planning to quit (n=287; 56% female; mean age=39.6) completed a discrete choice purchase task before and after 3 months' experience using one of three packaging options. Conjoint analysis and pre-post modelling evaluated the change in importance of pack attributes and willingness to pay for US, Blank or GWL (blindness; teeth; gangrene) pack designs. RESULTS: Price determined ~70% of purchase choices, while pack design determined ~22%. Irrespective of intervention arm, US packaging generated appeal valuations compared with Blank packaging, while GWLs consistently provoked strong aversive valuations at baseline and follow-up. Compared with the US pack arm, using GWL packs for 3 months decreased willingness to pay for US packaging (ß=-$0.38, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.00). Wear-out effects were detected in the discount needed to willingly purchase the gangrene-GWL pack (ß=$0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.82) and Blank pack (ß=$0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74) but not for GWLs (blindness, teeth) not used in trial. CONCLUSION: Compared with US branded packs, the negative valuation of non-branded GWL packs attenuates with even 3 months' use but does not generalise to non-used GWLs. This suggests that GWLs should be regularly refreshed. The appeal valuation of industry imagery suggests that the US plan to retain such imagery on packs may ameliorate the effect of GWLs.

Effect of Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs on US Smokers' Cognitions and Smoking Behavior After 3 Months: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's implementation of graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs is under challenge in US courts. Objective: To determine whether GWLs can affect US smokers' perceptions about their cigarettes or health consequences and changes in smoking behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a randomized clinical trial of the effect of a 3-month, real-world experience of cigarettes with GWL packaging. Community recruitment was done from September 2016 through December 2019 of daily smokers from San Diego, California, aged 21 to 65 years, who were not ready to quit. Participants were randomized to purchase and receive cigarettes in 1 of 3 pack designs: GWL, blank, or standard US pack. Data analysis was performed from July 2020 to February 2021. Interventions: The study manufactured GWL cigarette packs (3 versions with Australian-licensed images) and packs devoid of marketing. For 3 months, participants purchased GWL, blank, or standard US pack cigarettes that were delivered to their home. Main Outcomes and Measures: Smoking-related cognitions and behavior were queried by daily and weekly interactive text messages. Smoking behavior was self-reported before and after the intervention by 96% of randomized participants and was biochemically validated on a subsample. Results: The study sample included 357 participants (195 women [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [11.9] years); 116 were randomized to the standard US pack group, 118 were randomized to the GWL pack group, and 125 were randomized to the blank pack group. Over the 3 months, participants who received the GWL packs had reduced positive perceptions of recent cigarettes smoked compared with participants who received the branded US pack (mean difference, -0.46 SD; 95% CI, -0.73 SD to -0.20 SD; P < .001). Health concerns increased in all groups, with a significant increase in the GWL group vs the US pack group (mean difference, 0.35 SD; 95% CI, 0.09 SD to 0.62 SD; P = .002). Quitting cognitions increased in all study groups, with a peak mean change of 0.60 SD for GWL participants vs 0.34 SD for US pack participants (mean difference, 0.55 SD; 95% CI, 0.28 SD to 0.81 SD; P < .001). GWL participants had slightly more cigarette abstinence periods per week than the US pack group, but the difference was not significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.13). At 3 months, there was no between-group difference in any smoking behavior. The blank pack group was similar to the US pack group on all measures. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the introduction of GWL packs appears to decrease positive perceptions of cigarettes and increase quitting cognitions in the short term. However, additional complementary tobacco control strategies may be necessary for GWL packs to be associated with reduced smoking behavior. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676193.

Tool to assess appeal-aversion response to graphic warning labels on cigarette packs among US smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Graphic warning labels on cigarette packaging are mandated in 118 countries and are under consideration in the USA. We propose an appeal-aversion assessment tool to help regulators choose among graphic packaging options. METHODS: After familiarisation with different cigarette packaging, adult daily smokers (n=338) from San Diego, California, USA completed a discrete choice appeal-aversion purchasing task and provided information on nicotine dependence and sociodemographics (2017-2019). The conjoint analysis estimated the importance and price utility for product attributes (ie, packaging, price, tobacco origin and quitline number). The price premiums that smokers would be willing to pay to avoid purchasing graphic packaging were calculated. RESULTS: Among purchase determinants, the price was the most important attribute (65.5%), followed by packaging design (27.1%). Compared with blank packaging without marketing, branded industry packs had appeal valuations (US$0.54; 95% CI: US$0.44 to US$0.65), whereas graphic warning packs had aversion valuations that varied with the salience of the image (blindness=-US$2.53, 95% CI: -US$2.76 to -US$2.31; teeth damage=-US$2.90, 95% CI: -US$3.17 to -US$2.63; and gangrenous foot=-US$3.70, 95% CI: -US$4.01 to -US$3.39). The aversion was such that 46.2% of participants were willing to pay a 50+% premium over their current cigarette price to have their branded packs rather than a graphic pack. These appeal-aversion valuations were moderated by sex, income and nicotine dependence (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers indicated a willingness to pay substantial premiums to avoid purchasing graphic packaging. Results suggest that mandating graphic warnings on US cigarette packs would induce price aversion and may deter cigarette purchasing. Price valuations from this appeal-aversion tool could be useful for regulators to differentiate between graphic warning labels.

Real-world exposure to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages in US smokers: The CASA randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The US lags behind >120 countries in implementing graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs. US courts prevented implementation of FDA's 2012 rule requiring GWLs citing the need for more evidence on effectiveness. After more research, in 2020, the FDA proposed a revised rule mandating GWLs. This trial will test how the introduction of GWLs influence cognitions and behavior in US smokers. METHOD: To investigate the "real-world" impact of GWLs in US smokers, we are conducting a randomized trial involving a 3-month intervention and 8-month follow-up. The study recruited California smokers between September 2016 through December 2019 and randomly assigned them into 3 groups (1) Blank Pack devoid of any cigarette branding; (2) GWL Pack featuring 1 of 3 rotating images added to blank pack; or (3) their usual Standard US Pack. Throughout the 3-month intervention, participants purchased study-packaged cigarettes and reported daily cognitions and behavior through ecological momentary assessments. We will validate self-reported tobacco use with saliva cotinine concentrations following the 3-month intervention and 8-month follow-up. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 359 participants (average age 39 years; average cigarette consumption half a pack/day). The 3 study groups were balanced on age, gender, race-ethnicity, education and income (17% low income) as well as on smoking related variables. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-month real-world randomized trial will test the effect of repackaging cigarettes from standard US packs to GWL plain packs on smokers' perceptions of the risks of smoking, their perception of the appeal of their cigarettes, and on their smoking behavior.

Standardised cigarette packaging may reduce the implied safety of Natural American Spirit cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: Over two-thirds of Natural American Spirit (NAS) smokers believe their cigarettes might be 'less harmful', but toxicological evidence does not support this belief. We assessed whether standardised packaging could reduce the possibility of erroneous inferences of 'safety' drawn from NAS cigarette packaging. METHODS: US adult smokers (n=909) were recruited to a between-subject survey experiment (3 brands×3 packaging/labelling styles) through Amazon Mechanical Turk and rated their perception of whether a randomly assigned cigarette package conveyed that the brand was 'safer' on a three-item scale (Cronbach's α=0.92). We assessed whether NAS packs were rated higher on the 'implied safety' scale than two other brands and estimated the effect that plain packaging (ie, all branding replaced with a drab dark brown colour) and Australian-like packaging (ie, all branding replaced with a drab dark brown colour and a graphic image and text on 75% of the pack surface) had on perceptions of the NAS cigarette package. RESULTS: Smokers' ratings of the standard NAS pack on the implied safety scale (mean=4.6; SD=2.9) were 1.9 times (P <0.001) higher than smokers' ratings of a Marlboro Red pack (mean=2.4; SD=2.3) and 1.7 times (P <0.001) higher than smokers' ratings of a Newport Menthol pack (mean=2.7; SD=2.4). These perceptions of implied safety were lower when plain packaging was used (Cohen's d=0.66; P <0.001) and much lower when Australian-like packaging was used (Cohen's d=1.56; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that NAS cigarette packaging conveys that its cigarettes are 'safer' and that such perceptions are lower with standardised packaging, both with and without warning images.