Associations between smokers' knowledge of causes of smoking harm and related beliefs and behaviors: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

BACKGROUND: Most smokers know that smoking is harmful to health, but less is known about their understanding of what causes the harms. The primary aim was to examine smokers' perceptions of the relative contributions to smoking-related morbidity from combustion products, nicotine, other substances present in unburned tobacco, and additives. A secondary aim was to evaluate the association of these perceptions with nicotine vaping product use intentions, and quitting motivation/intentions. METHODS: Participants were current smokers and recent ex-smokers from Australia, Canada, England and the United States (N = 12,904, including 8511 daily smokers), surveyed in the 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Respondents reported on how much they thought combustion products, nicotine, chemicals in the tobacco and additives in cigarettes contribute to smoking-related morbidity (none/very little; some but less than half; around half; more than half; all or nearly all of it; don't know). RESULTS: Overall, 4% of participants provided estimates for all four component causes that fell within the ranges classified correct, with younger respondents and those from England most likely to be correct. Respondents who rated combustion as clearly more important than nicotine in causing harm (25%) were the least likely to be smoking daily and more likely to have quit and/or to be vaping. Among daily smokers, all four cause estimates were independently related to overall health worry and extent of wanting to quit, but the relative rating of combustion compared to nicotine did not add to prediction. Those who answered 'don't know' to the sources of harm questions and those suggesting very little harm were consistently least interested in quitting. CONCLUSIONS: Most smokers' knowledge of specific causes of harm is currently inadequate and could impact their informed decision-making ability.

Perceived Truthfulness of Reduced Lung Cancer Risk Advertising Claims Influences Consumers' Intention to try and to Purchase Snus.

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of a reduced risk claim about lung cancer, presented in various formats, on smokers' and non-smokers' interest in trying Camel Snus and intention to purchase Camel Snus. We varied claim formats by varying advertising messages for Camel Snus in 4 ways (1) text only; (2) bar chart; (3) text/testimonial; and (4) bar chart/testimonial. 3001 participants were recruited from a web-based consumer specialty panel via an email invitation. In 2015, a second study was conducted, using similar methods, where 3001 additional participants were recruited. Overall, controlling for other factors, the presence of an MRTP claim was not significantly related to interest in trying snus [X2 (4) = 8.567, P = .073], or purchase intentions [X2 (4) = 1.148, P = .887]. Relative to a control ad where no explicit health risk claim was made, the Graphic + testimonial [OR = 1.29] or Text only [OR = 1.41] claims did significantly increase interest in trying Camel Snus. However, the adverting format did not impact interest in purchasing Camel Snus. While current smokeless tobacco users (95%) and smokers (59%) expressed interest in trying Camel Snus, non-tobacco users (7%) showed low interest in trying or purchasing Camel Snus (P < .001). Interest in trying Camel Snus was stronger in younger smokers compared to older smokers. Among current smokers, worry about lung cancer (the key focus of the reduced risk claim) was not associated with interest in trying Camel Snus or with purchase intention [OR = .91, 95% CI: .72, 1.14] or intention to purchase snus [OR = 1.07, 95% CI: .86, 1.32]. Future research should evaluate how claim and messaging formats influence perceived truthfulness and whether this effect differs among sub-groups of consumers, such as adolescents, those with tobacco-related disease, and former smokers. It will also be helpful to understand whether perceptions of ad truthfulness result in changes in product use patterns over time. In sum, giving people truthful, credible information about relative product risks, such as through authorized MRTP claims, is important, but such information is likely insufficient to get smokers to switch.

Cigarette filter ventilation, smoking topography, and subjective effects: A mediational analysis.

BACKGROUND: Filter ventilation in cigarettes has been associated with alterations in smoking topography in order to compensate for the lower nicotine yields. Subjective effects of cigarettes include sensations, which can be affected by how a person smokes a cigarette. We look at smoking topography as a mediator in the relationship between filter ventilation levels and subjective effects. METHODS: Smoking topography and subjective effects data come from the baseline usual cigarette brand laboratory visits of participants (N = 607) in a randomized clinical trial on reduced nicotine cigarettes. Conditional process analysis was done using PROCESS macro version 3.5 in SPSS. RESULTS: There was a positive indirect effect of ventilation on satisfaction through total puff volume (0.004, 95% CI: 0.002, 0.007]) as well as ventilation on satisfaction through puff count then total puff volume, sequentially (0.001, 95% CI: [0.000, 0.003]). There was a positive indirect effect of ventilation on enjoyment through puff count for individuals less than 43 years of age (0.01, 95% CI: [0.002, 0.013]). There was a positive indirect effect of ventilation on enjoyment through total puff volume for individuals who smoke less than 14.33 cigarettes per day (0.009, 95% CI: [0.004, 0.015]). CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence that topography measures (puff count and total puff volume), mediate the relationship between filter ventilation and specific subjective effects of smoking (satisfaction and enjoyment). Age and cigarettes smoked per day moderated these relationships. These results could have implications regarding filter ventilation restrictions and smokers' perceptions of using such cigarettes.

Exploring the psychometric properties of a tripartite model of risk perception (TRIRISK) in a general U.S. population sample.

Objective: Risk perceptions are key constructs in some theories of health behavior. A tripartite model of risk perception, the TRIRISK model, was developed to assess deliberative, affective, and experiential components of risk perception. The current paper attempts to replicate the factor structure of the TRIRISK measure for cancer and extend the structure to respiratory illness. Methods and Measures: Participants 18 or older were recruited using an address-based sample in New York State to participate in a Web-based survey. We employed the TRIRISK questionnaire with respect to cancer and respiratory illness. Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted in Mplus to validate the TRIRISK model in our sample. TRIRISK model fit across demographic and behavioral groups was tested using multiple-group models. Results: Of the 704 people included in the analysis, the mean age of participants was 46.9, the majority reported being female (58.5%), and most were White (81.7%). For cancer and respiratory illness, items loaded on the respective constructs as expected. Overall, the TRIRISK model framework fits well across differing subgroups, suggesting that this is a valid model of risk perception to use in a general population sample. Conclusion: These results provide further evidence that the TRIRISK model is a good model to use for risk perceptions in tobacco control research. The TRIRISK model can be used to communicate risk to encourage positive health behaviors among most sociodemographic groups.

Stigmatizing attitudes about lung cancer among individuals who smoke cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: Many individuals with lung cancer report experiencing stigma associated with their diagnosis. The objective of this study was to explore how different factors, including smoking status, lung cancer concern, and thoughts on smoking behaviors, were associated with increased stigmatizing attitudes towards people with lung cancer. METHODS: In 2015, a Web-based survey was completed by people who currently smoked. Participants (n=1419) aged 18-65 years were randomly assigned to one of three scenarios in which the character who was diagnosed with lung cancer currently, formerly, or never smoked cigarettes. Two aspects of stigma were assessed: blaming the victim and negative attributions about people with lung cancer. RESULTS: For blaming the victim and negative attributions, lung cancer stigma differed by scenario (described smoking status, p<0.0001), when adjusting for race, sex, education level, age, income, nicotine dependence, quit intentions, and quit attempts. Higher levels of lung cancer concern were associated with greater blaming the victim (p=0.001), when adjusting for scenario and other significant correlates. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that stigmatizing attitudes from people who smoke towards people with lung cancer may be reflective of how they feel about their own smoking habits. We suggest that specific messaging guidelines that avoid an over emphasis on an individual's smoking status, cessation interventions that address stigma, and screening messages tailored to smoking status, may help to lessen the burden of lung cancer stigma.

'95% less harmful'? Exploring reactions to quantitative modified risk claims for snus and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES: Studies examining perceptions of 'modified risk tobacco product' (MRTP) messages for e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have indicated consumers want statistics and quantification of harm reduction. However, limited research exists on reactions to quantitative MRTP messages. DESIGN: We conducted 12 focus groups in the USA in 2019-6 focused on e-cigarette messages and 6 on snus messages. Eight groups were with current smokers (ages 21-66) and four with young adult (ages 18-25) non-smokers (n=57). Participants discussed messages stating that use of snus and vaping products have been estimated by scientists to be about 90% and 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes, respectively. RESULTS: Several participants agreed the messages strongly communicated that the products are less harmful than cigarettes, were attention getting and could be 'convincing'. However, participants expressed scepticism about the source and accuracy of the stated figures, and some noted the claims could be misleading and attractive to young people. Comments also reflected some claim misunderstandings (eg, that e-cigarettes only pose a 5% chance of harm). Participants also agreed that stating e-cigarette risks 'are unlikely to exceed 5% of cigarette smoking harms' was confusing and less impactful than the '95% less harmful' wording. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative claims suggesting high levels of reduced risk when comparing e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco/snus relative to cigarettes may be successful in gaining attention and being persuasive for some audiences, particularly, if from more credible sources. However, message developers, users and evaluators should be mindful of message limitations and aim to mitigate unintended consequences.

Potential Impact of a Paper About COVID-19 and Smoking on Twitter Users' Attitudes Toward Smoking: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional study (Miyara et al, 2020) conducted by French researchers showed that the rate of current daily smoking was significantly lower in patients with COVID-19 than in the French general population, implying a potentially protective effect of smoking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the dissemination of the Miyara et al study among Twitter users and whether a shift in their attitudes toward smoking occurred after its publication as preprint on April 21, 2020. METHODS: Twitter posts were crawled between April 14 and May 4, 2020, by the Tweepy stream application programming interface, using a COVID-19-related keyword query. After filtering, the final 1929 tweets were classified into three groups: (1) tweets that were not related to the Miyara et al study before it was published, (2) tweets that were not related to Miyara et al study after it was published, and (3) tweets that were related to Miyara et al study after it was published. The attitudes toward smoking, as expressed in the tweets, were compared among the above three groups using multinomial logistic regression models in the statistical analysis software R (The R Foundation). RESULTS: Temporal analysis showed a peak in the number of tweets discussing the results from the Miyara et al study right after its publication. Multinomial logistic regression models on sentiment scores showed that the proportion of negative attitudes toward smoking in tweets related to the Miyara et al study after it was published (17.07%) was significantly lower than the proportion in tweets that were not related to the Miyara et al study, either before (44/126, 34.9%; P<.001) or after the Miyara et al study was published (68/198, 34.3%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The public's attitude toward smoking shifted in a positive direction after the Miyara et al study found a lower incidence of COVID-19 cases among daily smokers.

Worry about lung cancer is related to numeracy and risk perception of diseases associated with smoking.

BACKGROUND: Numeracy is one's ability to use numbers in context and influence's decision making and perceptions of health risk. Worry about lung cancer1 is an indicator of perceived risk2 and is related to interest in cessation and cancer screening. PURPOSE: The analysis sought to explore underlying relationships among worry about lung cancer, smoking-related disease risk perceptions, and numeracy in a web-based panel. METHODS: A Web-based survey, including a numeracy measure, was completed by 1,682 participants aged 18-65 recruited in 2014. Former and current smokers were asked about LC worry and current smokers were asked their PR of diseases associated with smoking. RESULTS: Females (m=25.64, 95% CI [24.67, 26.61]), respondents aged 45-65 (m=26.15, 95% CI [24.89, 27.41]), those who worry "all the time" about LC (m=27.62, 95% CI [25.66, 29.58]), and respondents perceiving a higher risk of LC compared to other smokers (m=28.84, 95% CI [27.66, 30.01]) expressed significantly higher PR means. Higher household income (OR=1.20, 95% CI [1.08, 1.34]), age (OR=0.86, 95% CI [0.77, 0.98]), and comparative LC risk (OR=2.52, 95% CI [2.01, 3.17]) were significantly associated with greater worry about LC. As PR increases by one unit, the probability of worrying increases by 4.6%. For numeracy scores, odds ratio showed that as scores increased by one unit, the probability of worrying decreased by 11.9%. DISCUSSION: In this study, we have shown that PR has a positive association with LC worry and that numeracy has a negative association with LC worry. TRANSLATION TO HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE: This information can be used to target subpopulations with low PR and numeracy about their risks for lung cancer and to develop tailored messages to educate these people.