Perceived relative harm and addictiveness compared with cigarettes and intentions to use modified risk tobacco products utilizing FDA-authorized marketing claims among adults in the United States.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: We assessed adults' perceived relative harm and addictiveness of products using FDA-authorized modified risk tobacco products (MRTP) claims and associations with intentions to use MRTPs. METHODS: Data were from the May 2022 Rutgers Omnibus study among US 18-45-year-old adults (n=2964), collected by the Rutgers Institute for Nicotine and Tobacco Studies (INTS). Outcomes were perceived relative harm and addictiveness versus a typical cigarette and intentions to use a product stating a reduced harm claim (General Snus) or a reduced exposure claim (VLN King). We conducted regression analyses of associations between perceived relative harm and addictiveness and intentions to use each product, stratified by smoking status. RESULTS: The minority of participants perceived products with a reduced harm claim as much less harmful vs. cigarettes (21 %, 19 %, 7 %, and 8 % among persons who smoked daily, smoked some days, formerly smoked, and never smoked respectively) and products with a reduced exposure claim as much less addictive vs. cigarettes (24 %, 26 %, 14 %, 20 % respectively). Perceived lower relative harm and addictiveness were significantly associated with higher intentions to use products stating reduced harm or reduced exposure claim across all smoking statuses with one exception (relative addictiveness was not associated with intention to use products stating the reduced harm claim among persons who formerly smoked). CONCLUSIONS: Two current FDA-authorized MRTP claims were not effective in conveying that MRTPs were less harmful or addictive than cigarettes to most participants. Perceiving products as less harmful or addictive were significantly associated with intentions to use MRTPs.