Harm perceptions across vaping product features: An on-line cross-sectional survey of adults who smoke and/or vape in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vaping products are diverse with a wide variety of features, and popular products change rapidly. This study examined the features and types of vaping products that people who smoke and/or vape perceive contribute to the health harms of vaping. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional survey co-designed with adults who smoked/vaped and pre-registered. An on-line survey (November 2022) was used of a convenience sample of adults in the United Kingdom who smoked and/or vaped (n = 494). MEASUREMENTS: As primary outcomes, respondents were asked to select any of 15 vaping product features they perceived might have any effect on the health harms of vaping (for each: selected, not selected). Independent variables were smoking/vaping status (smoke and vape; vape, formerly smoked; vape, never regularly smoked; smoke, do not currently vape); relative vaping harm perceptions [less harmful than smoking (accurate), equally/more harmful than smoking or do not know/refused (other)]. Binary logistic regressions were used to compare outcomes by current vaping/smoking status and relative harm perceptions, adjusting for age and sex. FINDINGS: Most people (54.7%) selected between one and three features. The most frequently selected were nicotine concentration (62.2%) and amount of e-liquid consumed (59.1%), followed by nicotine type (e.g. salt or freebase; 33.0%), source/purchase location (25.3%), flavours (24.7%), temperature to heat e-liquid (21.1%), heat produced by device (20.9%), e-liquid brand (20.9%), amount of emissions (18.6%), device type (e.g. disposable, pod, tank; 17.2%), material of tank (17.0%), power/wattage (13.0%), device brand (8.1%), device size (4.1%) and device weight (2.4%). Higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid and salt (versus freebase) nicotine were perceived to confer greater harms. Disposables were perceived as slightly more harmful than reusable devices. There were few differences by current vaping/smoking status and between those with accurate (versus other) harm perceptions of vaping relative to smoking (P > 0.05 for most contrasts, adjusting for age and sex). CONCLUSIONS: Certain features and types of vaping products [higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid consumed and salt (versus freebase) nicotine] were perceived to confer greater health harms among a sample of UK adults who smoked and/or vaped. Findings are consistent with pervasive misperceptions that nicotine is a major cause of harm, although e-liquid volume is likely to contribute to harms.

Noticing education campaigns or public health messages about vaping among youth in the United States, Canada and England from 2018 to 2022.

Public health campaigns have the potential to correct vaping misperceptions. However, campaigns highlighting vaping harms to youth may increase misperceptions that vaping is equally/more harmful than smoking. Vaping campaigns have been implemented in the United States and Canada since 2018 and in England since 2017 but with differing focus: youth vaping prevention (United States/Canada) and smoking cessation (England). We therefore examined country differences and trends in noticing vaping campaigns among youth and, using 2022 data only, perceived valence of campaigns and associations with harm perceptions. Seven repeated cross-sectional surveys of 16-19 year-olds in United States, Canada and England (2018-2022, n = 92 339). Over half of youth reported noticing vaping campaigns, and noticing increased from August 2018 to February 2020 (United States: 55.2% to 74.6%, AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.18-1.24; Canada: 52.6% to 64.5%, AOR = 1.13, 1.11-1.16; England: 48.0% to 53.0%, AOR = 1.05, 1.02-1.08) before decreasing (Canada) or plateauing (England/United States) to August 2022. Increases were most pronounced in the United States, then Canada. Noticing was most common on websites/social media, school and television/radio. In 2022 only, most campaigns were perceived to negatively portray vaping and this was associated with accurately perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking among youth who exclusively vaped (AOR = 1.46, 1.09-1.97). Consistent with implementation of youth vaping prevention campaigns in the United States and Canada, most youth reported noticing vaping campaigns/messages, and most were perceived to negatively portray vaping.

Impact of E-liquid Packaging on Vaping Product Perceptions Among Youth in England, Canada, and the United States: A Randomized Online Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Vaping is not risk-free but can help those who smoke to reduce harm to health and stop smoking. However, packaging of vaping products, including e-liquids, appeals to youth and might facilitate vaping among nicotine-naïve people. Standardized packaging of vaping products could moderate the appeal of vaping among youth. This study assessed how youth interest in trying and perceived health harms of using e-liquids are associated with branded or standardized (white or olive) e-liquid packaging with different nicotine levels displayed. AIMS AND METHODS: A between-subject experiment with three packaging and two nicotine level conditions included youth (n = 13801) aged 16 to 19 from England, Canada, and the United States as a part of a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2021. Participants' interest in trying and perceived harm of e-liquids were analyzed using logistic and multinomial regressions adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, country, vaping, and smoking status. RESULTS: Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth reported no interest in trying e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.64) or olive (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.47 to 1.80) standardized packs. Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth inaccurately perceived e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.34) or olive (aOR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.41) standardized packs as equally or more harmful than smoking. E-liquid nicotine levels displayed on packs were not associated with youth interest in trying or harm perceptions of using e-liquids. CONCLUSIONS: Among 16- to 19-year-old youth from England, Canada, and the United States, standardized packaging of e-liquids was associated with lower interest in trying and higher health risk perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: Branded packaging of vaping products appeal to youth and might prompt nicotine use among those who had never smoked. This study suggests that restricting branding elements on e-liquid packaging is associated with youth's lower interest in trying e-liquids and higher misperceptions that vaping is equally or more harmful than smoking. Standardized packaging might reduce appeal of vaping among youth, but its potential to discourage vaping for harm reduction should also be considered.

Marketing claims on the websites of leading e-cigarette brands in England.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to electronic cigarette (EC) marketing is associated with EC use, particularly among youth. In England, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) regulate EC marketing to reduce appeal to youth; however, there are little published data on EC marketing claims used online. This study therefore provides an overview of marketing claims present on the websites of EC brands popular in England. METHODS: From January to February 2022, a content analysis of 10 of England's most popular EC brand websites was conducted, including violation of CAP codes. RESULTS: Of the 10 websites, all presented ECs as an alternative to smoking, 8 as a smoking cessation aid and 6 as less harmful than smoking. Four websites presented ECs as risk-free. All mentioned product quality, modernity, convenience, sensory experiences and vendor promotions. Nine featured claims about flavours, colours, customisability and nicotine salts. Seven featured claims concerning social benefits, personal identity, sustainability, secondhand smoke and nicotine strength. Six featured claims about fire safety. Some claimed ECs are cheaper than tobacco (n=5), cited health professionals (n=4) or featured collaborations with brands/icons (n=4). All were assessed by the research team to violate one or more CAP code(s) by featuring medicinal claims (n=8), contents which may appeal to non-smokers (n=7), associations with youth culture (n=6), depictions of youth using ECs (n=6) or media targeting youth (n=5). CONCLUSION: Among 10 top EC brand websites in England, marketing elements that might appeal to youth were commonly identified and CAP code compliance was low.