Cargando…

Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products

BACKGROUND: Health messages on e-cigarette packs emphasise nicotine addiction or harms using similar wording to warnings on cigarette packs. These may not be appropriate for e-cigarettes which constitute a reduced risk alternative for smokers. This research aimed to (1) develop and test a selection...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kimber, Catherine, Cox, Sharon, Frings, Daniel, Albery, Ian P., Dawkins, Lynne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00540-1
_version_ 1783749734648774656
author Kimber, Catherine
Cox, Sharon
Frings, Daniel
Albery, Ian P.
Dawkins, Lynne
author_facet Kimber, Catherine
Cox, Sharon
Frings, Daniel
Albery, Ian P.
Dawkins, Lynne
author_sort Kimber, Catherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health messages on e-cigarette packs emphasise nicotine addiction or harms using similar wording to warnings on cigarette packs. These may not be appropriate for e-cigarettes which constitute a reduced risk alternative for smokers. This research aimed to (1) develop and test a selection of relative risk messages for e-cigarette products; (2) compare these to the two current EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) nicotine addiction messages; and (3) explore differences between smokers, non-smokers and dual users. METHOD: Twenty-six messages focusing on either harm-reduction or cessation were developed and rated by multidisciplinary experts for accuracy, persuasiveness and clarity. The eight highest ranking messages were compared alongside the TPD messages in a sample of 983 European residents (316 smokers, 327 non-smokers, 340 dual users) on understandability, believability and convincingness. RESULTS: On all three constructs combined, the two TPD messages rated the highest, closely followed by four relative risk messages “Completely switching to e-cigarettes lowers your risk of smoking related diseases”, “Use of this product is much less harmful than smoking”, “Completely switching to e-cigarettes is a healthier alternative to smoking”, and “This product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes” which did not differ statistically from the TPD messages. Non-smokers rated TPD1 significantly higher overall than dual users. Dual users rated “This product is a safer alternative to smoking” significantly higher than non-smokers. Messages did not differ on understandability. CONCLUSIONS: These alternative messages provide a useful resource for future research and for policy makers considering updating e-cigarette product labelling. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-021-00540-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8424813
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84248132021-09-10 Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products Kimber, Catherine Cox, Sharon Frings, Daniel Albery, Ian P. Dawkins, Lynne Harm Reduct J Methodology BACKGROUND: Health messages on e-cigarette packs emphasise nicotine addiction or harms using similar wording to warnings on cigarette packs. These may not be appropriate for e-cigarettes which constitute a reduced risk alternative for smokers. This research aimed to (1) develop and test a selection of relative risk messages for e-cigarette products; (2) compare these to the two current EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) nicotine addiction messages; and (3) explore differences between smokers, non-smokers and dual users. METHOD: Twenty-six messages focusing on either harm-reduction or cessation were developed and rated by multidisciplinary experts for accuracy, persuasiveness and clarity. The eight highest ranking messages were compared alongside the TPD messages in a sample of 983 European residents (316 smokers, 327 non-smokers, 340 dual users) on understandability, believability and convincingness. RESULTS: On all three constructs combined, the two TPD messages rated the highest, closely followed by four relative risk messages “Completely switching to e-cigarettes lowers your risk of smoking related diseases”, “Use of this product is much less harmful than smoking”, “Completely switching to e-cigarettes is a healthier alternative to smoking”, and “This product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes” which did not differ statistically from the TPD messages. Non-smokers rated TPD1 significantly higher overall than dual users. Dual users rated “This product is a safer alternative to smoking” significantly higher than non-smokers. Messages did not differ on understandability. CONCLUSIONS: These alternative messages provide a useful resource for future research and for policy makers considering updating e-cigarette product labelling. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-021-00540-1. BioMed Central 2021-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8424813/ /pubmed/34496865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00540-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Kimber, Catherine
Cox, Sharon
Frings, Daniel
Albery, Ian P.
Dawkins, Lynne
Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title_full Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title_fullStr Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title_full_unstemmed Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title_short Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
title_sort development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00540-1
work_keys_str_mv AT kimbercatherine developmentandtestingofrelativeriskbasedhealthmessagesforelectroniccigaretteproducts
AT coxsharon developmentandtestingofrelativeriskbasedhealthmessagesforelectroniccigaretteproducts
AT fringsdaniel developmentandtestingofrelativeriskbasedhealthmessagesforelectroniccigaretteproducts
AT alberyianp developmentandtestingofrelativeriskbasedhealthmessagesforelectroniccigaretteproducts
AT dawkinslynne developmentandtestingofrelativeriskbasedhealthmessagesforelectroniccigaretteproducts