Independent and combined effects of very low nicotine cigarette messages and e-cigarette messages: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: USA is considering reducing nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels, coupled with promoting alternative nicotine delivery products (eg, e-cigarettes). However, effective communication is needed to reduce misperceptions about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) being less harmful than regular cigarettes. METHODS: In 2022-2023, we conducted a four-group randomised clinical trial with a national probability sample from an online panel (971 adults who smoked cigarettes exclusively, 472 adults who dual used cigarettes and e-cigarettes and 458 adults aged 18-29 who had never smoked). Participants were randomised (parallel assignment) to one message condition: (1) VLNCs as harmful but easier to quit than regular cigarettes (n=468), (2) those who are not ready to quit should consider switching to e-cigarettes as less harmful alternatives (n=484), (3) combined (VLNC and e-cigarette messages; n=476) or (4) control condition (ie, water ads), n=473. The primary outcome was perceived absolute harm of VLNCs. RESULTS: Perceived harm of VLNCs was higher in the VLNC condition compared with the e-cigarette and control conditions, and higher in the combined condition compared with the e-cigarette condition (adjusted p<0.05). Among adults who dual used, intention to switch to e-cigarettes was higher in the VLNC condition than the e-cigarette, combined or control conditions (adjusted p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VLNC messages reduced the misperception that VLNCs are less harmful than cigarettes, but adding messages about e-cigarettes did not enhance desired outcomes. These VLNC messages can be considered during the rollout of a reduced nicotine policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05506046.

Perceptions of a reduced nicotine policy and predictors of policy support: A nationally representative U.S. survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (∼ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers. METHODS: Data were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated. RESULTS: In adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy. CONCLUSIONS: Educational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion.

Reactions to Messages About a Nicotine Reduction Policy: A Focus Group Study Among People Who Use Little Cigars and Cigarillos.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed rulemaking to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products to non-addictive levels. This qualitative study documents reactions to messages communicating this policy among people who use little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs). AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with participants from four populations with the highest prevalence of cigar use (African American males and females, white males and females). Participants described their reactions to eight messages about the policy: Three messages about the equal risk of LCCs with regular and low nicotine levels; three quit efficacy messages about low nicotine LCCs being easier to quit; one "compensation" message to correct misperceptions about the policy causing people to smoke more to get desired nicotine; and one message about using alternative nicotine sources (eg, e-cigarettes). RESULTS: Participants perceived risk messages as the most motivating to quit, whereas efficacy messages made some participants feel that the policy would cause former users of LCCs to relapse. Many participants expressed favorable responses to the compensation message. The message about using alternative nicotine sources sparked intense responses, with many participants expressing outrage and mistrust of the message. Participants' beliefs that they were not addicted to LCCs dampened their perceptions of the effectiveness of the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the addictiveness and relative harms of LCCS influenced responses to policy messages. The FDA should consider using different messages to communicate with people who use LCCs because they perceive LCCs as different from cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to document affective and cognitive responses to the FDA's reduced nicotine policy among people who use LCCs. The false belief that cigar products are less harmful than cigarettes may be influencing people's lack of support for the reduced nicotine policy and difficulty in understanding its potential positive impact. To maximize the public health benefit of the reduced nicotine policy, the FDA should include LCC products in the policy; however, it is crucial that they use educational messaging to clarify misperceptions regarding nicotine and harm as it applies to LCCs.

"I Crave a Blunt, I Don't Crave a Cigarillo": A Focus Group Study on Perceptions of Nicotine and Addiction among US Adults Who Currently Smoke Little Cigars or Cigarillos.

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s proposal to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes is gaining traction, it is still undetermined whether the policy will also include other combustible tobacco products, such as little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and how such a policy should be communicated given the patterns of use and perceptions around LCCs. This study examined perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCC use and involved data collection from eight semi-structured virtual focus groups conducted in Summer 2021 in the US. Participants were adults who reported past-30-day use of LCCs, consisting of African American males (n = 9), African American females (n = 9), white males (n = 14), and white females (n = 11). Participants discussed their perceptions of nicotine and addiction in general and in relation to LCC use. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Differences across race and sex groups were examined. Participants did not consider nicotine to be a characterizing feature of LCCs; rather, they generally associated nicotine with cigarettes. Participants' views of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs were discussed along four dimensions: context of use, frequency of use, the presence of cravings, and whether a product is modified (e.g., by adding marijuana). Social and infrequent use, a lack of cravings, and the use of LCCs for marijuana were considered indicative of a lack of addiction and reasons not to be concerned about nicotine in LCCs. Because perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs differ from those of cigarettes, communications about a reduced nicotine policy that includes LCCs should consider these differences to ensure the policy is understood by people who currently use LCCs and to prevent people who use cigarettes from switching to LCCs.

Messaging about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to influence policy attitudes, harm perceptions and smoking motivations: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: To reduce smoking and the harms it causes, countries, including the USA, are considering policies to reduce nicotine in combustible tobacco to minimally addictive levels. Effective messages about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) and this policy are crucial in combating misperceptions threatening the policy's effectiveness. DATA AND METHODS: A discrete choice experiment assessed messages about VLNCs. Participants were 590 adults who smoked exclusively, 379 adults who both smoked and used e-cigarettes, 443 adults who formerly smoked and 351 young adults who never smoked (total n=1763). Seven message attributes were varied systematically (source, harm, chemicals, nicotine, satisfaction, addictiveness and quitting efficacy). Outcomes were selection of messages that generated the most positive attitude towards reduced nicotine policy, the greatest perceived harmfulness of VLNCs, and most strongly motivated quitting and initiating behaviour for VLNCs. RESULTS: Information about specific harms and chemicals of VLNCs had the largest effects on selection of messages as eliciting more negative attitudes towards VLNCs policy, increasing perceived VLNC harmfulness, increasing motivation to quit VLNCs and decreasing motivation to try VLNCs. Messages with information about quitting efficacy were selected as more motivating to quit among those who smoke, but also more motivating to try VLNCs among those who do not smoke. CONCLUSION: Harm and chemical information can be prioritised to ensure VLNCs are not misperceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Messages about increased quitting efficacy and reduced addictiveness associated with VLNCs may backfire if presented to those who do not smoke.

Perceptions of Nicotine Reduction Policy in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. METHODS: In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. RESULTS: While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.

Sex Differences in Becoming a Current Electronic Cigarette User, Current Smoker and Current Dual User of Both Products: A Longitudinal Study among Mexican Adolescents.

This study aimed to assess sex differences in predictors for becoming a current exclusive electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) user, current exclusive smoker, or current dual user (concurrent smoking and e-cigarette use). This longitudinal study included 2399 females and 2177 males who had tried neither cigarettes nor e-cigarettes at baseline and attended 57 middle schools in the three largest cities in Mexico. We estimated multinomial logistic models stratified by sex. At follow-up, the prevalence of current exclusive e-cigarette use was 6.4% for males and 5.5% for females; current exclusive smoking was similar among males (3.6%) and females (3.5%); dual use was 2.4% females and 1.8% males. In the adjusted model, current e-cigarette use among females was associated with baseline current drinking (ARR = 1.85; p < 0.05), having a job (ARR = 1.99; p < 0.05), higher technophilia (ARR = 1.27; p < 0.05), and higher positive smoking expectancies (ARR = 1.39; p < 0.05). Among males, only having friends who smoke cigarettes at baseline was a significant predictor of current exclusive e-cigarette use at follow-up (ARR = 1.44; p < 0.05). For both sexes, current exclusive smoking at follow-up was associated with baseline current drinking (male ARR = 2.56; p < 0.05; female ARR = 2.31; p < 0.05) and, among males, only with having a parent who smoked (ARR = 1.64; p < 0.05). For both sexes, dual use at follow-up was associated with baseline current drinking (male ARR = 3.52; p < 0.005; female ARR = 2.77; p < 0.05); among females, with having paid work (ARR = 2.50; p < 0.001); and among males, with parental smoking (ARR = 3.20; p < 0.05). Results suggested both common and different risk factors by sex, suggesting that interventions may need to consider targeting sex differences.