Testing messages about comparative risk of electronic cigarettes and combusted cigarettes

Tobacco Control

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2019, Pages 440-448

  Yang, Bo ^a   Owusu, Daniel ^a   Popova, Lucy ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

advertising and promotion; electronic nicotine delivery devices; harm reduction

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERSE EVENT; ADVERTISING; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; TOBACCO; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERTISING; ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SMOKERS; SMOKING CESSATION; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85052397860     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: 14683318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054404     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Eriksen M, Mackay J, Schluger NW, et al. The Tobacco Atlas. 5th ed. Atlanta: GA: American Cancer Society, 2015.
2. Kozlowski LT, Sweanor D. Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines. Int J Drug Policy 2016;32:17-23.
3. Kozlowski LT, Sweanor DT. Young or adult users of multiple tobacco/nicotine products urgently need to be informed of meaningful differences in product risks. Addict Behav 2018;76:376-81.
4. Department of Health. Towards a smoke-free generation: A tobacco control plan for England. London, UK: Public Health England, 2017. https://www. gov. uk/government/publications/towards- A- smoke- free- generation- tobacco- control- plan- for- england. (accessed 9 Dec 2017).
5. Action on Smoking and Health. The impact of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) on e-cigarette regulation in the UK. 2016 http://ash. org. uk/information- Andresources/briefings/the- impact- of- The- eu- tobacco- products- directive- on- e- cigaretteregulation- in- The- uk/(accessed 18 Nov 2017).
6. Parliament of Canada. An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-Smokers' Health Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts. 2018 http://www. parl. ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/S-5/royal- Assent (accessed 13 Jul 2018).
7. Siegel M. What the FDA gets wrong about e-cigarettes: It's a mistake to tell Americans that vaping is as dangerous as smoking. 2017 https://www. bloomberg. com/view/articles/2017- 03-16/what- The- fda- gets- wrong- About- e- cigarettes (accessed 22 Dec 2017).
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for the industry: Modified risk tobacco product applications. 2012 https://www. fda. gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Guid ance Comp lian ceRe gula tory Info rmation/UCM297751. pdf (accessed 22 Dec 2017).
9. Pepper JK, Byron MJ, Ribisl KM, et al. How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Prev Med 2017;96:144-8.
10. Fix BV, Adkison SE, O'Connor RJ, et al. Evaluation of modified risk claim advertising formats for Camel Snus. Health Educ J 2017;76:971-85.
11. Barnes AJ, Bono RS, Lester RC, et al. Effect of flavors and modified risk messages on e-cigarette abuse liability. Tob Regul Sci 2017;3:374-87.
12. Wackowski O, Hammond D, O'Connor R, et al. Smokers' and e-cigarette users' perceptions about e-cigarette warning statements. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016;13:655.
13. Rodu B, Plurphanswat N, Hughes JR, et al. Associations of proposed relative-risk warning labels for snus with perceptions and behavioral intentions among tobacco users and nonusers. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:809-16.
14. Mays D, Moran MB, Levy DT, et al. The impact of health warning labels for swedish snus advertisements on young adults' snus perceptions and behavioral intentions. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:1371-5.
15. Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr 1992;59:329-49.
16. Sanders-Jackson A, Schleicher NC, Fortmann SP, et al. Effect of warning statements in e-cigarette advertisements: An experiment with young adults in the United States. Addiction 2015;110:2015-24.
17. Mays D, Smith C, Johnson AC, et al. An experimental study of the effects of electronic cigarette warnings on young adult nonsmokers' perceptions and behavioral intentions. Tob Induc Dis 2016;14:17.
18. Wong NC, Cappella JN. Antismoking threat and efficacy appeals: Effects on smoking cessation intentions for smokers with low and high readiness to quit. J Appl Commun Res 2009;37:1-20.
19. Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Voudris V. Factors associated with dual use of tobacco and electronic cigarettes: A case control study. Int J Drug Policy 2015;26:595-600.
20. Majeed BA, Stanton CA, Dube SR, et al. Electronic cigarette use among current smokers: A pilot qualitative study. Health Behav Policy Rev 2016;3:590-6.
21. Brose LS, Brown J, Hitchman SC, et al. Perceived relative harm of electronic cigarettes over time and impact on subsequent use. A survey with 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;157:106-11.
22. Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Kehl L, et al. Receptivity to e-cigarette marketing, harm perceptions, and e-cigarette use. Am J Health Behav 2015;39:121-31.
23. Amrock SM, Zakhar J, Zhou S, et al. Perception of e-cigarette harm and its correlation with use among U.S. adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res 2015;17:330-6.
24. Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, et al. Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: A worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11:4356-73.
25. Pechacek TF, Nayak P, Gregory KR, et al. The potential that electronic nicotine delivery systems can be a disruptive technology: Results from a national survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:1989-97.
26. Goniewicz ML, Lingas EO, Hajek P. Patterns of electronic cigarette use and user beliefs about their safety and benefits: An internet survey. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013;32:133-40.
27. Majeed BA, Weaver SR, Gregory KR, et al. Changing Perceptions of Harm of E-Cigarettes Among U.S. Adults, 2012-2015. Am J Prev Med 2017;52:331-8.
28. Tan ASL, Bigman CA. E-Cigarette Awareness and Perceived Harmfulness. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:141-9.
29. Tan AS, Lee CJ, Bigman CA. Comparison of beliefs about e-cigarettes' harms and benefits among never users and ever users of e-cigarettes. Drug Alcohol Depend 2016;158:67-75.
30. Tan ASL, Lee CJ, Nagler RH, et al. To vape or not to vape? Effects of exposure to conflicting news headlines on beliefs about harms and benefits of electronic cigarette use: Results from a randomized controlled experiment. Prev Med 2017;105:97-103.
31. Yates K, Friedman K, Slater MD, et al. A content analysis of electronic cigarette portrayal in newspapers. Tob Regul Sci 2015;1:94-102.
32. Wackowski OA, Giovenco DP, Singh B, et al. Content analysis of us news stories about e-cigarettes in 2015. Nicotine Tob Res 2018;20:1015-9.
33. Berry C, Burton S, Howlett E. The Impact of E-Cigarette Addiction Warnings and Health-Related Claims on Consumers' Risk Beliefs and Use Intentions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 2017;36:54-69.
34. Banerjee SC, Greene K, Li Y, et al. The Effect of Comparatively-Framed versus Similarity-Framed E-Cigarette and Snus Print Ads on Young Adults' Ad and Product Perceptions. Tob Regul Sci 2016;2:214-29.
35. Pepper JK, Emery SL, Ribisl KM, et al. Effects of advertisements on smokers' interest in trying e-cigarettes: The roles of product comparison and visual cues. Tob Control 2014;23:iii31-iii36.
36. Jo CL, Golden SD, Noar SM, et al. Effects of E-cigarette Advertising Messages and Cues on Cessation Outcomes. Tob Regul Sci 2018;4:562-72.
37. Katz SJ, Lindgren B, Hatsukami D. E-cigarettes Warning Labels and Modified Risk Statements: Tests of Messages to Reduce Recreational Use. Tob Regul Sci 2017;3:445-58.
38. US Food and Drug Administration. Philip Morris S.A. Modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) applications. 2017 https://www. fda. gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/Mark etin gand Adve rtising/ucm546281. htm#7 (accessed 13 Jul 2018).
39. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: A review. Tob Control 2011;20:327-37.
40. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, et al. The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:674-82.
41. Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, et al. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. The European Journal of Public Health 2009;19:631-7.
42. Mead EL, Cohen JE, Kennedy CE, et al. The influence of graphic warning labels on efficacy beliefs and risk perceptions: A qualitative study with low-income, urban smokers. Tob Induc Dis 2016;14:25.
43. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control 2016;25:341-54.
44. California Department of Public Health. Still blowing smoke. 2015 http://stillblowingsmoke. org (accessed 30 Mar 2018).
45. Goodall C, Appiah O. Adolescents' Perceptions of Canadian Cigarette Package Warning Labels: Investigating the Effects of Message Framing. Health Commun 2008;23:117-27.
46. Zhao X, Nan X, Yang B, et al. Cigarette warning labels: Graphics, framing, and identity. Health Educ 2014;114:101-17.
47. Nonnemaker J, Farrelly M, Kamyab K, et al. Experimental study of graphic cigarette warning labels: Final results report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International 2010 http://www. tobaccolabels. ca/wp/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/USA-2010- Experimental- Study- of- Graphic- Cigarette- Warning- Labels- Final- Results- Report- FDA. pdf (accessed 22 Dec 2017).
48. Popova L, Owusu D, Jenson D, et al. Factual text and emotional pictures: Overcoming a false dichotomy of cigarette warning labels. Tob Control 2017;27:250-3.
49. Dillard JP, Peck E. Affect and persuasion-emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research 2000;27:461-95.
50. Zhao X, Peterson EB, Kim W, et al. Effects of self-affirmation on daily versus occasional smokers' responses to graphic warning labels. Communic Res 2014;41:1137-58.
51. Hall MG, Sheeran P, Noar SM, et al. A brief measure of reactance to health warnings. J Behav Med 2017;40:520-9.
52. Cantrell J, Vallone DM, Thrasher JF, et al. Impact of tobacco-related health warning labels across socioeconomic, race and ethnic groups: Results from a randomized webbased experiment. PLoS One 2013;8:e52206.
53. Chaffee BW, Gansky SA, Halpern-Felsher B, et al. Conditional risk assessment of adolescents' electronic cigarette perceptions. Am J Health Behav 2015;39:421-32.
54. Witte K, Cameron KA, McKeon JK, et al. Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. J Health Commun 1996;1:317-42.
55. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Evaluating the effectiveness of smokefree policies. 2009 https://www. iarc. fr/en/publications/pdfs- online/prev/handbook13/handbook13- 0. pdf (accessed 22 Dec 2017).
56. Ling PM, Neilands TB, Glantz SA. The effect of support for action against the tobacco industry on smoking among young adults. Am J Public Health 2007;97:1449-56.
57. Carpenter MJ, Hughes JR, Solomon LJ, et al. Both smoking reduction with nicotine replacement therapy and motivational advice increase future cessation among smokers unmotivated to quit. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72:371-81.
58. Slater DM, Peter J, Valkenburg PM. Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association 2015;39:3-31.
59. Kraus A, Myrick JG. Feeling bad about feel-good ads: The emotional and bodyimage ramifications of body-positive media. Communication Research Reports 2018;35:101-11.
60. Niederdeppe J, Heley K, Barry CL. Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues: Inoculation and narrative in competitive framing. J Commun 2015;65:838-62.
61. Weber R, Popova L. Testing Equivalence in Communication Research: Theory and Application. Commun Methods Meas 2012;6:190-213.
62. Snyder LB, LaCroix JM. How effective are mediated health campaigns? A synthesis of meta-analyses. In: Rice RE, Atkin CK, eds. Public communication campaigns. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013:113-29.
63. Stiff JB, Mongeau PA. Persuasive communication. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford, 2016.
64. Wackowski OA, Bover Manderski MT, Delnevo CD. Comparison of direct and indirect measures of e-cigarette risk perceptions. Tob Regul Sci 2016;2:38-43.
65. Popova L, Ling PM. Perceptions of relative risk of snus and cigarettes among US smokers. Am J Public Health 2013;103:e21-e23.
66. Persoskie A, Nguyen AB, Kaufman AR, et al. Criterion validity of measures of perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared to cigarettes. Addict Behav 2017;67:100-5.
67. Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. A Meta-Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000;30:407-29.
68. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 2000;27:591-615.
69. Milne S, Sheeran P, Orbell S. Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000;30:106-43.
70. Ruiter RAC, Kessels LTE, Peters G-JY, et al. Sixty years of fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence. International Journal of Psychology 2014;49:63-70.
71. Lindberg A, Niska B, Stridsman C, et al. Low nicotine dependence and high selfefficacy can predict smoking cessation independent of the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A three year follow up of a population-based study. Tob Induc Dis 2015;13:27.
72. Popova L, Ling PM. Nonsmokers' responses to new warning labels on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: An experimental study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:997.
73. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Tips from former smokers. 2017 https://www. cdc. gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/index. html (accessed 18 Dec 2017).
74. Popova L, Linde BD, Bursac Z, et al. Testing antismoking messages for Air Force trainees. Tob Control 2016;25:656-63.
75. Yzer M, LoRusso S, Nagler RH. On the conceptual ambiguity surrounding perceived message effectiveness. Health Commun 2015;30:125-34.
76. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. 2nd ed. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
77. Jackson SA. Message Effects Research: Principles of Design and Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1992.