Smoker and ex-smoker reactions to cigarettes claiming reduced risk.

CONTEXT: The tobacco industry is introducing modified tobacco products claiming to reduce the risk of smoking (potential reduced exposure products, PREPs). If PREPs are perceived as safe, they may deter smokers from quitting and encourage re-initiation by smokers who have quit. OBJECTIVE: To assess smokers' and ex-smokers' perceptions of PREPs and the impact of PREP claims on interest in quitting (among smokers) or in resuming smoking (ex-smokers). DESIGN: A random-digit-dialled survey of US smokers and ex-smokers. We used Eclipse, a modified PREP cigarette, as an exemplar PREP. During the survey, the interviewer read risk reduction claims made for Eclipse by its manufacturer, assessing smokers' interest in quitting before and after the exposure. PARTICIPANTS: 1000 current cigarette smokers and 499 ex-smokers (300 quit within the last two years), over 18 years old. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perception of risk reduction from Eclipse; interest in using Eclipse; smokers' interest in quitting was assessed using a stage of change approach (pre- and post-exposure to claims). RESULTS: 91% of smokers thought Eclipse was safer than regular cigarettes. 24% believed Eclipse was completely safe. 57.4% of smokers were interested in using Eclipse; interest was greatest among smokers who were contemplating quitting. Exposure to Eclipse's claims was followed by reduced interest in quitting. Among all ex-smokers, interest in Eclipse was 6.2%, but interest was 15.2% among young adults (18-25 years) who had stopped smoking within two years. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial risk that smokers will overinterpret reduced risk claims made for modified tobacco products. PREPs appeal to smokers who are contemplating quitting and exposure to reduced risk product claims appears to reduce smokers' readiness to quit. PREPs also appealed to young adults who had recently stopped smoking. Thus, reduced risk tobacco product claims can undermine adult cessation and youth prevention, possibly resulting in increased harm even if the products are less toxic.

Persistent use of nicotine replacement therapy: an analysis of actual purchase patterns in a population based sample.

BACKGROUND: In 1996, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved switching nicotine gum and patch from prescription to over-the-counter (OTC) status. Some expressed concerns that broader availability and lack of physician control might increase persistent use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)-that is, use beyond the period specified by the FDA approved label. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of persistent use of OTC nicotine gum and patch for periods of > 3 months, > or = 6 months, > or = 12 months, and > or 24 months. DESIGN: Analysis of NRT purchase patterns in data from a population based panel of US households that electronically scanned all household purchases between January 1997 and March 2000. SUBJECTS: In a national panel of 40,000 US households, 2690 recorded NRT purchases. RESULTS: Among 805 households that purchased nicotine gum, 2.3% of new purchase incidents led to continuous monthly purchase of gum for > or = 6 months. For nicotine patches (2050 households) the percentage was 0.9%. For both gum and patch, the incidence of persistent purchase dropped below 0.4% by 24 months. Allowing one month gaps within a "continuous" purchase run resulted in increased estimates (for gum: 6.7% for > or = 6 months and 1.0% for > or = 24 months; for patch: 1.7% for > or = 6 months and 0.05% for > or = 24 months). CONCLUSION: Persistent use of nicotine gum and patch is very rare and has not increased with the transition to OTC use, despite removal of physician oversight.

Smokers' beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess beliefs about the tar and nicotine delivery characteristics and health benefits of Light and Ultra Light cigarettes among cigarette smokers. DESIGN: Random digit dialed telephone survey conducted in September 1999. SUBJECTS: Daily smokers (n = 2120) of Regular (46%), Light (39%), and Ultra Light (15%) cigarettes in the USA. The sample was weighted to match the US smoker population on age, sex, and ethnicity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs about Light and Ultra Light cigarettes were summarised on three dimensions: Safety (reduced health risk), Delivery (lowered tar and nicotine delivery), and Sensation (less harsh). RESULTS: Most smokers believed Lights and Ultra Lights were less harsh and delivered less tar and nicotine. On average, smokers believed that Lights afforded a 25% reduction in risk, and Ultra Lights a 33% reduction in risk. Light and Ultra Light cigarette smokers evaluated the risks of their own cigarette types more favourably. Light smokers had greater interest in quitting than Ultra Light smokers. Quitting intention was modestly related to beliefs about these cigarettes. Believing that Lights and Ultra Lights delivered less tar and nicotine and that they were less harsh each independently contributed to the belief that these cigarettes were safer. CONCLUSIONS: Many Light and Ultra Light smokers believe that smoking these cigarettes impart a substantial health benefit, due in part to their experience that these cigarettes are less harsh and the belief that these cigarettes deliver less tar.

Effect of health messages about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes on beliefs and quitting intent.

OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of three health messages focusing on vent holes, sensory effects of Light and Ultra Light cigarettes, or health consequences of smoking, respectively, on beliefs and quitting intentions. DESIGN: In the course of a random digit dialed telephone survey, subjects were randomised to hear one of three messages. To test the effects of the messages, beliefs and quitting intentions were assessed both pre- and post-message. PARTICIPANTS: Daily smokers (n = 2120) of Regular (46%), Light (39%), and Ultra Light (15%) cigarettes in the USA. The sample was weighted to match the US smoker population on age, sex, and ethnicity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs were summarised on three dimensions: Safety (reduced health risk), Delivery (lower tar and nicotine delivery), and Sensation (less harsh). Quitting interest was captured by the "quit index", an aggregate measure of quitting interest and intent. RESULTS: The message focusing on smokers' sensory perceptions of Light and Ultra Light cigarettes resulted in the most positive change in beliefs about safety, delivery, and intent to quit, and was particularly effective among those who believed that these cigarettes were less harsh. The effect was most pronounced among young adults, and among smokers of Light and Ultra Light brands who most endorsed their sensory benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing smokers' sensory experience that Light and Ultra Light cigarettes feel less harsh may be a promising strategy for changing their misconceptions about these cigarettes and enhancing their interest in quitting. Media counter-advertising on Lights and Ultra Lights, focusing on sensory aspects of these cigarettes, may be an important part of tobacco control efforts.

Test of "Light" cigarette counter-advertising using a standard test of advertising effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of six advertising strategies (two message strategies presented in three different contexts) designed to promote smoking cessation by addressing smokers' misperceptions about Light cigarettes. DESIGN: Smokers viewed one of six, 30 second test television concept advertisements, which varied by message (one emphasising how the sensory effects of Lights can be deceptive, the other describing the effects of vent blocking) and by ad context (non-commercial public service announcement (PSA), promotion of unbranded nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or promotion of branded NRT). The effectiveness of each advertisement was determined using a validated advertising testing system in which ads were viewed in the context of reviewing a pilot television programme. Response to ads is assessed through shifts in subject choices of products offered as prizes before and after viewing the test advertisements. Included among the possible prizes were cigarettes and various pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation. SUBJECTS: Daily smokers (n = 1890) of Regular (34%), Light (47%), and Ultra Light (19%) cigarettes recruited from eight US cities. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the shift away from cigarettes as the selected prize following exposure to the test advertisements. Secondary outcomes of interest included movement away from Light cigarettes and movement towards assisted quitting products. RESULTS: Smokers who saw the advertisement emphasising the sensory characteristics of Light cigarettes were more likely than subjects who saw the advertisement emphasising the effect of vent blocking to move away from cigarettes (OR = 1.97, 95% confidence interval CI 1.25 to 3.09; chi(2)(1) = 8.69, p = 0.003). Similarly, subjects who saw the advertisement framed as a PSA, rather than as a promotion for either a branded or unbranded NRT product, were also somewhat more likely to move away from cigarettes (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.40; chi(2)(1) = 2.97, p = 0.085). The effect was observed regardless of sex, age, or type of cigarette smoked. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing smokers' sensory perceptions of Light cigarettes and presenting this information in an impartial way is likely to be an effective communication strategy for counter-marketing Light cigarettes.

Two behavioral treatments for smoking reduction: a pilot study.

This study compared two behavioral treatments on their efficacy and acceptability in reducing smoking, using a crossover design with interposed return to baseline, 2 weeks/condition. 20 US cigarette smokers reporting an interest in reducing, but not quitting, their smoking either increased the inter-cigarette interval or selected easy cigarettes to eliminate, with a goal of 50% reduction. Nicotine gum accompanied both treatments. Measurements taken were self-reported cigarettes per day, carbon monoxide, cotinine, and thiocyanate; self-rated acceptability of the treatments; adverse events. Both treatments decreased self-reported cigarettes per day (-45% and -38%) and carbon monoxide (-20% and -19%), but not cotinine or thiocyanate. Increasing the inter-cigarette interval produced slightly more reduction in cigarettes per day than cigarette selection, but no other differences were found. Both treatments were acceptable and safe. Although our sample size was small and the duration of reduction documented short, both treatments appear to be acceptable and efficacious behavioral treatments for reduction.

Treatment resistant smokers: a pilot study of nicotine nasal spray and inhaler.

A growing proportion of smokers are those who have failed prior treatments for cessation. We tested the efficacy of nicotine nasal spray and nicotine inhaler in two uncontrolled, open-label studies of 19 and 20 smokers who had previously failed nicotine patch therapy. As in the three prior studies of treatment failures, 6 month abstinence rates were extremely low both with the nasal spray (0%) and the inhaler (5%). We discuss possible treatments for and methodological issues in researching treatment-resistant smokers.

Smoker reactions to a "radio message" that Light cigarettes are as dangerous as Regular cigarettes.

The purpose of this study was to examine in a systematic, controlled fashion the reactions of smokers to scientifically correct information about the risks of smoking Light cigarettes (about 6-15 mg tar by the FTC method). Random-digit dialing, computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to locate daily smokers of Light cigarettes. In an experimental design, smokers were randomly assigned to listen (n = 293) or not (n = 275) to a persuasive simulated radio message on the risks of Light cigarettes; 108 of those who did not listen to the message in the first part of the interview were played the message in the second part, to evaluate some repeated-measures effects. Those who heard the message were more likely to report that one Light cigarette could give a smoker the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette and that Light cigarettes were more dangerous: 55% said the message made them think more about quitting and 46% said the message increased the amount they wanted to quit; 42% said that after hearing the message they thought Light cigarettes were more dangerous. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior, structural equation modeling analysis indicated that the message acted to increase intention to quit smoking by increasing the desire to quit smoking. Seventy-three per cent of the smokers agreed that it was important to play such messages widely on the radio; 77% agreed that there should be a warning on packs that vent blocking increases tar; 61% agreed that the location of filter vents should be marked. The majority of smokers of Light cigarettes seem to value being informed that Light cigarettes are as dangerous for them as Regular cigarettes, and this information increases their intentions to quit smoking.

Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined smokers' understanding of the relative tar deliveries of Ultra-light, Light, and Regular cigarettes, reasons for smoking Ultra-light/Light cigarettes, and the likelihood of both quitting smoking and switching to Regular cigarettes if they came to learn that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette gave the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. DESIGN: Ten- to fifteen-minute random-digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with both a national probability sample (n = 788) and a state random sample (n = 266) of daily smokers over the age of 18. RESULTS: Less than 10% of smokers in the national sample and only 14% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Less than 10% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Ultra-light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Thirty-two percent of the Light and 26% of the Ultra-light smokers in the national sample, and 27% of Light and 25% of Ultra-light smokers in the state sample, said they would be likely to quit smoking if they learned one Light/Ultra-light equaled one Regular. CONCLUSION: Many Light and Ultra-light smokers are smoking these cigarettes to reduce the risks of smoking and/or as a step toward quitting. However, these smokers are unaware that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette can give them the same amount of tar and nicotine as one Regular cigarette. Many of the Ultra-light/Light smokers sampled in this study stated that they would be likely to quit if they knew this information. Mistaken beliefs about low-yield brands are reducing intentions to quit smoking.

Individual differences in the subjective effects of the first cigarette of the day: a self-report method for studying tolerance.

Some smokers are more sensitive than others to the subjective effects of cigarettes, especially the first cigarette of the day. This report explored self-reported subjective effects to the first cigarette of the day and examined the extent to which heaviness of smoking and years smoking are associated with subjective effects. In 3 independent samples (ns = 254, 116, 86). self-reports of light-headedness from the first cigarette of the day decreased with increasing heaviness of smoking and increasing the number of years smoking, suggesting that differences in responses were due to differences in chronic tolerance. Because measures of the subjective effects of drugs are useful in the study of drug response variability, this self-report item on light-headedness should be included in further research on individual differences in the subjective effects of cigarette smoking.

Measuring drug urges by questionnaire: do not balance scales.

Measures designed to assess self-reported drug urges are routinely balanced; that is, they contain a relatively equal number of positively and negatively worded items. Using smoking urges as an example, we explored the effect of item wording on responses to self-report items. One hundred sixteen cigarette smokers responded to 32 positively worded statements and their 32 negatively worded counterparts adapted from the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. For 59% of the paired statements, the negatively worded item was scored higher than the positively worded item. Significant mean differences (item means for 56% of the paired statements were significantly different at the .01 level) and only moderate correlations (mean = .54; range = -.04 to .79) between item pairs were found. Balanced scales may have greater costs than benefits in the assessment of drug urges.

Detection of vent-blocking on light and ultralight cigarettes.

Trained raters can reliably identify vent-blocking in ultralight cigarettes based on tar stain patterns, yet detection of this phenomenon has not been previously studied in light cigarettes. This study was conducted to extend the research on vent-blocking in ultralight cigarettes to the much more popular light cigarettes. We wanted to find out if individuals could discriminate among stain patterns on cigarette butts with unblocked (0%), partially blocked (50%), and fully blocked (100%) vents using both light and ultralight cigarettes. Subjects were able to use the stain pattern technique to detect vent-blocking in light cigarettes as well as ultralight cigarettes.

Over-the-counter sleep aids: widely used but rarely studied.

Over-the-counter (OTC) sleep aids are used in greater proportions than benzodiazepines for the treatment of sleep problems, yet limited research has focused on these nonprescription drugs. This article reports the results of two studies that examined the use of OTC sleep aids and alcohol for sleep problems by university students. Of those subjects in both studies who reported sleep problems 1 day per month or more, 6.4% of men and 11.4% of women reported using OTC sleep aids, however, a significantly greater percentage of men reported using alcohol to induce sleep (23.4% vs. 10.9%, p < .008). Future studies on OTC sleep aids are recommended to address a broader range of issues such as potential side effects and at-risk populations, tolerance effects, and individual differences in responsiveness and sensitivity to these drugs.

Misuse of "light" cigarettes by means of vent blocking.

Best-selling "light" cigarettes (9-12 mg tar, by FTC method; Federal Trade Commission, 1990) generally employ filter vents to reduce standard tar and nicotine yields. Earlier research on "ultra light" cigarettes (1-4 mg tar) showed that filter vents were blocked by human smokers leading to dramatic increases in tar and nicotine yields. An objective indicator of vent blocking was applied to a sample of 158 discarded light cigarette butts, and results indicated extreme vent blocking in 47% 27% ( +/- 8, 95% CI), some vent blocking in 26% ( +/- 8), and no vent blocking in 47% ( +/- 8). Cigarette consumers need to be informed of the risks of vent blocking as a countermeasure to the marketing of light cigarettes to health-conscious smokers.