Developing and Validating Measures of Absolute and Relative E-Cigarette Product Risk Perceptions: Single Items Can Be Surprisingly Comprehensive.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco risk perceptions are important predictors of behavior and are impacted by tobacco communications. Our systematic literature review (completed in 2018) found there were no measures of e-cigarette risk perceptions that were completely consistent with tobacco researcher recommendations (eg, specifying use frequency) and had demonstrated validity and reliability. The current study develops measures to assess specific risk perceptions, including absolute risks and risks compared with cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, and all nicotine cessation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We generated a list of tobacco health effects based on our previous systematic review of tobacco risk perception measures. Based on health effects prioritized by regulatory science experts, we developed 63 items to assess seven types of e-cigarette risk perceptions: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to all nicotine cessation. We fielded these items in an online survey (N = 1642). Through reliability and validity analyses, we reduced this pool to 21 items, including many single-item measures. Supporting the measures' validity, each measure was negatively associated with current e-cigarette use, e-cigarette intentions, and skepticism about e-cigarette harms; and positively associated with perceiving e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes and intentions to quit e-cigarettes. DISCUSSION: This study developed and validated brief measures of several types of e-cigarette risk perceptions. Surprisingly, we found that for many types of risk perceptions, multi-item measures were redundant and these perceptions were well-represented by single-item measures. IMPLICATIONS: This study developed measures of seven types of e-cigarette health risk perceptions, including absolute health and addiction risk, and risk relative to cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, and cessation. We reduced 63 items to 21 to measure all of these constructs. These measures follow tobacco researcher recommendations, were developed using a rigorous measures development process, and demonstrated some aspects of reliability and validity. Because these measures are publicly available, they can be used by public health and industry researchers.

Absolute and Relative Smokeless Tobacco Product Risk Perceptions: Developing and Validating New Measures that are Up-to-Snuff.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco risk perceptions impact behavior. Our 2018 systematic review of tobacco risk perception measures found no measures of smokeless tobacco (ST) risk perceptions with demonstrated validity and complete consistency with tobacco researcher recommendations (e.g. specifying use frequency). This study develops such measures to assess seven specific risk perceptions of market-leading ST products: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to tobacco cessation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We fielded 64 items assessing risk perceptions associated with tobacco in an online survey experiment (N = 2754) that tested effects of exposing participants to a modified risk claim on a leading ST product. Through reliability and validity analyses, we reduced this to 35 items representing seven constructs. Exploratory factor analyses indicated single-factor solutions for all but two constructs: absolute health risk and health risk relative to cigarettes, which were each represented by two-factors (respiratory and oral risks). Participants perceived respiratory risks differently than oral risks: a modified risk claim reduced ST relative respiratory risk perceptions but increased ST perceived oral risks. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute and relative risk perceptions were each represented by two factors that behaved differently, underscoring the utility of assessing respiratory and oral risk perceptions separately. These measures of seven risk perception constructs demonstrated some validity and can be used to assess perceptions of ST risk in future research, such as postmarket surveillance of tobacco products authorized for marketing by FDA. IMPLICATIONS: This study develops and validates publicly available measures of seven smokeless tobacco risk perception constructs: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to tobacco cessation. This study suggests that for both absolute and relative risk perceptions, risks of respiratory and oral health effects should be assessed separately, because these risk perceptions may be impacted differently by modified risk claims, and are differentially related to smokeless tobacco beliefs, use intentions, and current use.

Message perceptions and effects perceptions as proxies for behavioral impact in the context of anti-smoking messages.

Researchers commonly use message perceptions (persuasive potential) or effects perceptions (perceived behavioral impact) in formative research to select tobacco risk messages. We sought to identify whether message perceptions or effects perceptions are more useful as proxies for the behavioral impact of tobacco risk messages. In a three-week trial, 703 U.S. adult smokers (ages ≥ 21) were randomly assigned to receive brief messages on their cigarette packs about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (chemical messages) or control messages about properly disposing of cigarette litter. The final follow-up survey assessed message perceptions, effects perceptions, quit intentions, and six behavioral outcomes. We conducted multiple mediation analysis in a structural equation modeling framework to test the indirect effects of messages by way of message perceptions and effects perceptions. Message perceptions did not independently mediate the impact of chemical messages on any of the outcomes (7 p-values ≥ 0.01). In contrast, effects perceptions mediated the impact of chemical messages on avoiding the messages, seeking chemical information, intentions to quit smoking, butting out a cigarette, forgoing a cigarette, and making a quit attempt (6 p-values ≤ 0.001). No mediation was present for social interactions about the message (p-value = 0.72). The effect sizes for these mediated effects were small to medium. Thus, effects perceptions, but not message perceptions, were a proxy for risk messages' impact on quit intentions and six quitting and related behaviors. These findings point to the diagnostic value of effects perceptions in formative research on tobacco risk messages.

Incremental criterion validity of message perceptions and effects perceptions in the context of anti-smoking messages.

To select promising health messages, formative research has often relied on perceived message effectiveness (PME) scales assessing either of two related constructs, message perceptions (persuasive potential) and effects perceptions (potential for behavioral impact). We sought to examine their incremental criterion validity within a comparative framework. Participants were 703 U.S. adult smokers (ages [Formula: see text] 21) who received anti-smoking or comparable control (littering) messages on their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. Structural equation models examined both PME constructs as simultaneous correlates of outcomes from the UNC Tobacco Warnings Model. Message perceptions demonstrated incremental criterion validity with attention, an early behavioral antecedent ([Formula: see text] = 0.82, p < .001). Effects perceptions demonstrated incremental criterion validity with later behavioral antecedents (range [Formula: see text] = 0.74-0.87, all p < .01) and quitting behaviors ([Formula: see text] = 0.36-0.66, all p < .001). Formative research on anti-smoking messages may benefit from focusing on effects perceptions to characterize potential for behavior change.

Demographic and psychological moderators of the relationship between neighborhood cigarette advertising and current smoking in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco advertising in retailers influences smoking, but little research has examined how this relationship differs among population subgroups. This study merged data on neighborhood cigarette advertising with geocoded survey data to assess the association between advertising prevalence and current smoking among New York City (NYC) residents, and whether demographic and psychological characteristics moderate this relationship. METHODS: Audit data from a stratified, random sample of 796 NYC tobacco retailers generated neighborhood prevalence estimates of cigarette advertising, which were linked with unweighted 2017 NYC Community Health Survey data (n = 7837 adult respondents with residential geocodes). Multilevel regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of current smoking by level of neighborhood cigarette advertising (quartiles). Interactions assessed differences in this relationship by demographic characteristics and current depression (analyses conducted in 2019). RESULTS: There was no main effect of advertising on smoking status or significant interactions with demographic variables, but current depression was an effect modifier (p = 0.045). Cigarette advertising was associated with current smoking among those with current depression (p = 0.023), not those without (p = 0.920). Specifically, respondents with depression who resided in neighborhoods in the highest quartile for cigarette advertising prevalence had higher odds of current smoking, compared to those living in the lowest advertising quartile [aOR: 1.72 (1.04, 2.86)]. CONCLUSION: Retail cigarette advertising may serve as an environmental cue to smoke among adults with depression. Efforts to restrict or counteract this practice, such as the development of community-level public health interventions and counter-marketing programs, may particularly benefit those with depression and, perhaps, other mental health disorders.

Behavioral heterogeneity among cigarette and e-cigarette dual-users and associations with future tobacco use: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

Dual-users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes are commonly treated as a single group. Our study applied a more nuanced classification of this complex behavior to examine its associations with future tobacco use behaviors using data from Waves 1 and 3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health. Dual-users at Wave 1 (n = 1,665) were categorized into 4 groups based on the frequency with which they used each product (i.e., some days, daily). Analyses identified sociodemographic correlates of group membership and the prevalence of (1) completely switching to e-cigarettes and (2) quitting both products by Wave 3. Dual-users who smoked cigarettes every day and used e-cigarettes some days (69.6%) were the majority and more likely to have lower education (p < .001). Although some day smoking and daily e-cigarette use was the least common category (5.9%), these individuals were most likely to have completely switched to e-cigarettes by Wave 3 (aOR = 6.19, 95% CI = 3.91, 9.79). Dual-users who smoked and used e-cigarettes some days were most likely to have completely quit tobacco by Wave 3 (aOR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.93, 5.40). In general, dual-users who had higher education or income were more likely to have completely switched to e-cigarettes or quit tobacco use by Wave 3. Adults who concurrently use cigarettes and e-cigarettes exhibit considerable heterogeneity in their use of these tobacco products. Dual-users that are higher on the socioeconomic gradient are more likely to engage in plausibly less harmful dual-use behaviors, which are more strongly associated with harm reduction and cessation behaviors. Future research should consider this variation to more accurately characterize the public health impact of dual-use.

E-Cigarette Health Harm Awareness and Discouragement: Implications for Health Communication.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence for the health harms of e-cigarettes is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful in health messaging. Our study sought to identify which harms tobacco product users were aware of and which most discouraged them from wanting to vape. METHODS: Participants were a convenience sample of 1,872 U.S. adult e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users recruited in August 2018. In an online survey, participants evaluated 40 e-cigarette harms from seven categories: chemical exposures, device explosions, addiction, cardiovascular harm, respiratory harm, e-liquid toxicity, and other harms. Outcomes were awareness of the harms ("check all that apply") and the extent to which the harms discouraged vaping (5-point scale; (1) "not at all" to (5) "very much"). RESULTS: Awareness of most e-cigarette harms was modest, being highest for harms in the device explosions category of harms (44%) and lowest for the e-liquid toxicity category (16%). The harms with the highest mean discouragement from wanting to vape were the respiratory harm (M = 3.82) and exposure to chemicals (M = 3.68) categories. Harms in the addiction category were the least discouraging (M = 2.83) compared with other harms (all p < .001). Findings were similar for e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction was the least motivating e-cigarette harm, a notable finding given that the current FDA e-cigarette health warning communicates only about nicotine addiction. The next generation of e-cigarette health warnings and communication campaigns should highlight other harms, especially respiratory harms and the chemical exposures that may lead to health consequences. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette health harms related to respiratory effects, chemical exposures, and other health areas most discouraged vaping among tobacco users. In contrast, health harms about addiction least discouraged use. Several countries have begun implementing e-cigarette health warnings, including the United States, and many others are considering adopting similar policies. To increase impact, future warnings and other health communication efforts should communicate about health harms beyond addiction, such as the effects of e-cigarette use on respiratory health. Such efforts should communicate that e-cigarette use is risky and may pose less overall risk to human health than smoking, according to current evidence.

Public Understanding of Cigarette Smoke Chemicals: Longitudinal Study of US Adults and Adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has increased communication efforts that aim to raise public awareness of the harmful constituents (ie, chemicals) in cigarette smoke. We sought to investigate whether the public's awareness of these chemicals has increased in light of such efforts. METHODS: Participants were national probability samples of 11 322 US adults and adolescents recruited in 2014-2015 (wave 1) and 2016-2017 (wave 2). Cross-sectional telephone surveys assessed awareness of 24 cigarette smoke chemicals at both timepoints. RESULTS: The proportion of US adults aware of cigarette smoke chemicals did not differ between waves 1 and 2 (25% and 26%, p = .19). In contrast, awareness of chemicals among adolescents fell from 28% to 22% (p < .001), mostly due to lower awareness of carbon monoxide, arsenic, benzene, and four other chemicals. Belief that most of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke come from burning the cigarette also fell from waves 1 to 2 (adults: 31% vs. 26%; adolescents: 47% vs. 41%, both ps < .05). Participants were more likely to be aware of cigarette smoke chemicals if they had been exposed to anti-smoking campaign advertisements (p < .05) or had previously sought chemical information (p < .05). Cigarette smoke chemical awareness did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers. CONCLUSION: Awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals remains low and unchanged among adults and decreased somewhat among adolescents. The association of chemical awareness with information exposure via campaigns and information seeking behavior is promising. More concerted communication efforts may be needed to increase public awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals, which could potentially discourage smoking. IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke may contribute to quitting. The US Food and Drug Administration is making efforts to increase public awareness of these chemicals. Two national surveys (2014-2017) found that chemical awareness was low among adults and adolescents. Although awareness did not change among adults, awareness among adolescents dropped over time. In addition, exposure to anti-smoking campaigns and chemical information seeking behavior were associated with higher awareness of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Campaigns and other efforts may be needed to increase awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals.

Impact of e-cigarette health warnings on motivation to vape and smoke.

BACKGROUND: A prevailing hypothesis is that health warnings for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could drive people away from vaping and towards smoking cigarettes. We consider an alternative hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings discourage both vaping and smoking. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 2218 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both. In August 2018, we randomised participants to one of three warning types (control text about littering, text-only e-cigarette warning or pictorial e-cigarette warning). We further randomised participants viewing e-cigarette warnings to one of three topics (nicotine addiction, health hazards of use, or both health hazards and harms of use). The preregistered primary outcome was intentions to quit vaping among e-cigarette users. Secondary outcomes included interest in smoking and Tobacco Warnings Model constructs: attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions and cognitive elaboration. RESULTS: Text warnings elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than control among e-cigarette users (d=0.44, p<0.001), and pictorial warnings elicited still higher intentions to quit vaping than text (d=0.12, p<0.05). Text warnings elicited lower interest in smoking compared with control among smokers (p<0.05); warnings had no other effects on interest in smoking among smokers or non-smokers. Text warnings about health hazards elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than nicotine addiction warnings. E-cigarette warnings also increased Tobacco Warnings Model constructs. DISCUSSION: E-cigarette health warnings may motivate users to quit vaping and discourage smoking. The most promising warnings include health hazards (other than nicotine addiction) and imagery. We found no support for the hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings could encourage smoking cigarettes.

Interest in "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarettes after hearing about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

INTRODUCTION: The US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the government to disseminate information about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. We sought to understand how the descriptors "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" affect smokers' interest in cigarettes in the context of information about chemicals in cigarette smoke. METHODS: Participants were a national probability sample of 1,101 US adult (ages ≥18) smokers recruited in 2014-2015. A between-subjects experiment randomized participants in a telephone survey to 1 of 4 cigarette descriptors: "organic," "natural," "additive-free," or "ultra-light" (control). The outcome was expected interest in cigarettes with the experimentally assigned descriptor, after learning that 2 chemicals (hydrogen cyanide and lead) are in cigarette smoke. Experimental data analysis was conducted in 2016-2017. RESULTS: Smokers indicated greater expected interest in "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarettes than "ultra-light" cigarettes (all p <.001) after learning that hydrogen cyanide and lead were in cigarette smoke. Smokers who intended to quit in the next 6 months expressed greater expected interest in the 4 types of cigarettes ("organic," "natural," "additive-free," and "ultra-light") compared to smokers not intending to quit (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers, especially those intending to quit, may be more inclined towards cigarettes described as "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" in the context of chemical information. An accumulating body of evidence shows that the US should fully restrict use of "organic" and "natural" descriptors for tobacco products as it has done for "additive-free" and "light" descriptors.

"Organic," "Natural," and "Additive-Free" Cigarettes: Comparing the Effects of Advertising Claims and Disclaimers on Perceptions of Harm.

INTRODUCTION: The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm. METHODS: Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were "organic," "natural," "additive-free," "light," or "regular;" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, "additive-free"). RESULTS: Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with "regular" and "light" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching. CONCLUSIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. IMPLICATIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims in tobacco marketing.

Cigarette pack messages about toxic chemicals: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The USA can require tobacco companies to disclose information about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, but the impact of these messages is uncertain. We sought to assess the effect of placing messages about toxic chemicals on smokers' cigarette packs. METHODS: Participants were 719 adult cigarette smokers from California, USA, recruited from September 2016 through March 2017. We randomly assigned smokers to receive either factual messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke and their health harms (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) on the side of their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. The primary trial outcome was intention to quit smoking. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, smokers whose packs had chemical messages did not have higher intentions to quit smoking at the end of the trial than those whose packs had control messages (P=0.56). Compared with control messages, chemical messages led to higher awareness of the chemicals (28% vs 15%, P<0.001) and health harms (60% vs 52%, P=0.02) featured in the messages. In addition, chemical messages led to greater negative affect, thinking about the chemicals in cigarettes and the harms of smoking, conversations about the messages and forgoing a cigarette (all P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Chemical messages on cigarette packs did not lead to higher intentions to quit among smokers in our trial. However, chemical messages informed smokers of chemicals in cigarettes and harms of smoking, which directly supports their implementation and would be critical to defending the messages against cigarette company legal challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02785484.

UNC Perceived Message Effectiveness: Validation of a Brief Scale.

BACKGROUND: Interventionists commonly identify promising messages for health communication efforts based on audience members' ratings of perceived message effectiveness (PME). PURPOSE: We sought to validate a new PME measure that improved on existing scales by focusing on the behavior and respondent, being brief, and having strong psychometric properties. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 999 adults and national probability samples of 1,692 adults and 869 adolescents recruited in 2015. Smokers and nonsmokers rated up to six brief messages about the chemicals in cigarette smoke on two PME scales. The first was the new three-item University of North Carolina (UNC) PME Scale that assessed effects perceptions. The second was an established six-item PME scale that assessed message perceptions. We examined the UNC PME Scale's psychometric properties and compared both scales using item factor analysis. RESULTS: The UNC PME Scale measured the same construct across multiple chemical messages (all factor loadings ≥ 0.86). It exhibited high reliability (>0.85) over very low to moderate levels of PME (z = -2.5 to 0.2), a range that is useful for identifying more promising messages. Samples of adults and adolescents showed a similar pattern of results. As expected, the UNC PME Scale was strongly positively correlated with message perceptions (r = .84). It also exhibited strong psychometric properties among participants regardless of education, reactance, sex, and smoking status. DISCUSSION: The UNC PME Scale reliably and validly measured PME among adults and adolescents from diverse groups. This brief scale may be used to efficiently evaluate candidate antismoking messages and may be suitable for adaptation to other health risk behaviors.

Impact of modified risk tobacco product claims on beliefs of US adults and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Under US law, tobacco product marketing may claim lower exposure to chemicals, or lower risk of health harms, only if these claims do not mislead the public. We sought to examine the impact of such marketing claims about potential modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). METHODS: Participants were national samples of 4797 adults and 969 adolescent US smokers and non-smokers. We provided information about a potential MRTP (heated tobacco product, electronic cigarette or snus). Experiment 1 stated that the MRTP was as harmful as cigarettes or less harmful (lower risk claim). Experiment 2 stated that the MRTP exposed users to a similar quantity of harmful chemicals as cigarettes or to fewer chemicals (lower exposure claim). RESULTS: Claiming lower risk led to lower perceived quantity of chemicals and lower perceived risk among adults and adolescents (all p<0.05, Experiment 1). Among adults, this claim led to higher susceptibility to using the MRTP (p<0.05). Claiming lower exposure led to lower perceived chemical quantity and lower perceived risk (all p<0.05), but had no effect on use susceptibility (Experiment 2). Participants thought that snus exposed users to more chemicals and was less safe to use than heated tobacco products or electronic cigarette MRTPs (Experiments 1 and 2). DISCUSSION: Risk and exposure claims acted similarly on MRTP beliefs. Lower exposure claims misled the public to perceive lower perceived risk even though no lower risk claim was explicitly made, which is impermissible under US law.

Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol.

Health warnings for e-cigarettes are a promising and novel tobacco control intervention for reducing e-cigarette use. We developed a new protocol for evaluating e-cigarette warnings by placing them on users' own devices to reflect real-world exposure. Study 1 participants were a national convenience sample of 606 U.S. adult e-cigarette users surveyed online in March 2017. Most Study 1 participants were willing to have their e-cigarette devices (87%) and refills (83%) labeled. Study 2 participants were a convenience sample of 22 adult e-cigarette users recruited in California, United States in April 2017. We applied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's proposed e-cigarette warning to users' own devices and refills. Most Study 2 participants (81%) reported using e-cigarette devices with our warning labels at least 90% of the time during the study. Nearly all (95%) said they would participate in the study again, and 100% would recommend the study to a friend. Conversations about e-cigarette harms, conversations about quitting e-cigarettes, and intentions to quit using e-cigarettes increased during the study (all p < 0.05). These studies show that our naturalistic labeling protocol was feasible, acceptable to participants, and had high retention over three weeks. Using the protocol can yield important evidence on the impact of e-cigarette warnings to inform tobacco warning policies.