Do Flavor Descriptions Influence Subjective Ratings of Flavored and Unflavored E-liquids Among Nonsmoking and Non-vaping UK Adolescents?

INTRODUCTION: Youth use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is rising globally and is associated with health harms. Flavor descriptions on e-liquid packaging may contribute to the appeal of e-cigarettes among youth. This study compared subjective ratings of e-liquid packaging flavor descriptions among nonsmoking and non-vaping UK adolescents. AIMS AND METHODS: This was an online observational study in a UK sample of nonsmoking and non-vaping adolescents aged 11-17 years. The primary analyses compared flavored versus unflavored descriptions and the secondary analyses compared sweet flavor versus fruit flavor descriptions. Outcomes were packaging appraisal, packaging receptivity, perceived harm, and perceived audience. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 120 participants (74% female). Packaging appraisal ratings were higher for e-liquids with flavored descriptions than unflavored descriptions (mean difference 5.9, 95% CI: 4.2 to 7.6, p < .001). Similarly, packaging receptivity ratings were higher for e-liquids with flavored descriptions than unflavored descriptions (mean difference 4.2, 95% CI: 2.8 to 5.6, p < .001). Participants also perceived e-liquids with flavored (vs. unflavored) descriptions as less "grown-up" (mean difference -5.2, 95% CI: -7.3 to -3.1, p < .001). However, ratings of perceived harm were similar for flavored and unflavored descriptions (mean difference -1.0, 95% CI: -2.6 to .5, p = .189). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study found differences in subjective ratings of e-liquids with flavored and unflavored descriptions, nonsmoking and non-vaping UK adolescents generally had low appraisal and receptivity for e-liquids and they perceived them as being "grown-up" and harmful. IMPLICATIONS: Youth use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing globally, leading to concerns about health harms. This study compared adolescents' ratings of e-liquids with flavored versus unflavored descriptions and e-liquids with sweet flavor versus fruit flavor descriptions. This study adds to previous studies that have compared adolescents' ratings of e-liquids with tobacco flavor versus non-tobacco flavor descriptions. Although packaging appraisal and receptivity ratings were higher (more positive) for e-liquids with flavored versus unflavored descriptions, overall, adolescents who do not smoke or vape had low appraisal and receptivity for e-liquids, and they perceived them as being "grown-up" and harmful.

Exploring the opinions and potential impact of unflavoured e-liquid on smoking cessation among people who smoke and smoking relapse among people who previously smoked and now use e-cigarettes: findings from a UK-based mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Although electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) appear to be effective in helping people who smoke to stop smoking, concerns about use of e-cigarettes among young people have led to restrictions on non-tobacco flavoured e-liquids in some countries and some US states. These restrictions could reduce the appeal of these products to non-smoking youth but could have negative consequences for people who smoke or use e-cigarettes. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, we recruited UK adults who smoked or used to smoke and subsequently vaped to explore their opinions of unflavoured e-liquids and their beliefs about how they would be impacted by hypothetical e-liquid flavour restrictions. Participants trialled an unflavoured e-liquid instead of their usual nicotine product for four hours and completed a survey and an online interview. RESULTS: Using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis and graphically presented data, we found differences in participants' opinions of unflavoured e-liquid. If only unflavoured, tobacco flavoured, and menthol flavoured e-liquids remained on the UK market, some people who smoke or vape may be unaffected, but some may relapse to smoking or continue smoking. Despite most wanting to prevent young people from initiating vaping, participants had varying opinions on whether flavour restrictions would be an effective method. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight that people who smoke and vape could be impacted by flavour restrictions in a range of ways, some of which could have a potential adverse impact on harm reduction efforts in the UK (e.g., by making smoking more appealing than vaping).

Effects of electronic cigarette e-liquid flavouring on cigarette craving.

BACKGROUND: E-liquid flavour restrictions may discourage electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) uptake among youth. However, possible unintended consequences may include reduced appeal and effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Non-tobacco flavours appear to be important for smoking cessation, but how and why are currently unclear. METHODS: We conducted an experimental study in a UK sample of adult daily smokers using an independent groups design (N=84). Participants were randomised to use an e-cigarette with nicotine-containing fruit/sweet-flavoured e-liquid (blackcurrant, strawberry, vanilla, caramel) or unflavoured e-liquid for 1 week. The primary outcomes were average, peak and cue-elicited cigarette craving (the latter was assessed using a cue exposure task). The secondary outcomes were smoking lapse occurrence, enjoyment of the e-cigarette, ease of transitioning from smoking to using an e-cigarette, intentions to continue using an e-cigarette, intentions and motivation to quit smoking, return to smoking, and continuation of e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-liquid flavouring did not appear to have an effect on average cigarette craving (b 0.18, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.79, p=0.57), peak cigarette craving (b -0.12, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.35, p=0.62) or cue-elicited cigarette craving (b -0.21, 95% CI -3.86 to 3.43, p=0.91). We did not find evidence of a difference in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence to suggest that nicotine-containing fruit/sweet-flavoured and unflavoured e-liquids have different effects on cigarette cravings after 1 week of use. Further research is needed to establish if differences emerge over longer periods of exposure and extend to smoking cessation outcomes.