Independent and combined effects of very low nicotine cigarette messages and e-cigarette messages: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: USA is considering reducing nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels, coupled with promoting alternative nicotine delivery products (eg, e-cigarettes). However, effective communication is needed to reduce misperceptions about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) being less harmful than regular cigarettes. METHODS: In 2022-2023, we conducted a four-group randomised clinical trial with a national probability sample from an online panel (971 adults who smoked cigarettes exclusively, 472 adults who dual used cigarettes and e-cigarettes and 458 adults aged 18-29 who had never smoked). Participants were randomised (parallel assignment) to one message condition: (1) VLNCs as harmful but easier to quit than regular cigarettes (n=468), (2) those who are not ready to quit should consider switching to e-cigarettes as less harmful alternatives (n=484), (3) combined (VLNC and e-cigarette messages; n=476) or (4) control condition (ie, water ads), n=473. The primary outcome was perceived absolute harm of VLNCs. RESULTS: Perceived harm of VLNCs was higher in the VLNC condition compared with the e-cigarette and control conditions, and higher in the combined condition compared with the e-cigarette condition (adjusted p<0.05). Among adults who dual used, intention to switch to e-cigarettes was higher in the VLNC condition than the e-cigarette, combined or control conditions (adjusted p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VLNC messages reduced the misperception that VLNCs are less harmful than cigarettes, but adding messages about e-cigarettes did not enhance desired outcomes. These VLNC messages can be considered during the rollout of a reduced nicotine policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05506046.

Perceptions of a reduced nicotine policy and predictors of policy support: A nationally representative U.S. survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (∼ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers. METHODS: Data were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated. RESULTS: In adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy. CONCLUSIONS: Educational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion.

Reactions to Messages About a Nicotine Reduction Policy: A Focus Group Study Among People Who Use Little Cigars and Cigarillos.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed rulemaking to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products to non-addictive levels. This qualitative study documents reactions to messages communicating this policy among people who use little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs). AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with participants from four populations with the highest prevalence of cigar use (African American males and females, white males and females). Participants described their reactions to eight messages about the policy: Three messages about the equal risk of LCCs with regular and low nicotine levels; three quit efficacy messages about low nicotine LCCs being easier to quit; one "compensation" message to correct misperceptions about the policy causing people to smoke more to get desired nicotine; and one message about using alternative nicotine sources (eg, e-cigarettes). RESULTS: Participants perceived risk messages as the most motivating to quit, whereas efficacy messages made some participants feel that the policy would cause former users of LCCs to relapse. Many participants expressed favorable responses to the compensation message. The message about using alternative nicotine sources sparked intense responses, with many participants expressing outrage and mistrust of the message. Participants' beliefs that they were not addicted to LCCs dampened their perceptions of the effectiveness of the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the addictiveness and relative harms of LCCS influenced responses to policy messages. The FDA should consider using different messages to communicate with people who use LCCs because they perceive LCCs as different from cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to document affective and cognitive responses to the FDA's reduced nicotine policy among people who use LCCs. The false belief that cigar products are less harmful than cigarettes may be influencing people's lack of support for the reduced nicotine policy and difficulty in understanding its potential positive impact. To maximize the public health benefit of the reduced nicotine policy, the FDA should include LCC products in the policy; however, it is crucial that they use educational messaging to clarify misperceptions regarding nicotine and harm as it applies to LCCs.

"I Crave a Blunt, I Don't Crave a Cigarillo": A Focus Group Study on Perceptions of Nicotine and Addiction among US Adults Who Currently Smoke Little Cigars or Cigarillos.

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s proposal to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes is gaining traction, it is still undetermined whether the policy will also include other combustible tobacco products, such as little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and how such a policy should be communicated given the patterns of use and perceptions around LCCs. This study examined perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCC use and involved data collection from eight semi-structured virtual focus groups conducted in Summer 2021 in the US. Participants were adults who reported past-30-day use of LCCs, consisting of African American males (n = 9), African American females (n = 9), white males (n = 14), and white females (n = 11). Participants discussed their perceptions of nicotine and addiction in general and in relation to LCC use. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Differences across race and sex groups were examined. Participants did not consider nicotine to be a characterizing feature of LCCs; rather, they generally associated nicotine with cigarettes. Participants' views of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs were discussed along four dimensions: context of use, frequency of use, the presence of cravings, and whether a product is modified (e.g., by adding marijuana). Social and infrequent use, a lack of cravings, and the use of LCCs for marijuana were considered indicative of a lack of addiction and reasons not to be concerned about nicotine in LCCs. Because perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs differ from those of cigarettes, communications about a reduced nicotine policy that includes LCCs should consider these differences to ensure the policy is understood by people who currently use LCCs and to prevent people who use cigarettes from switching to LCCs.

"I'm Bored and I'm Stressed": A Qualitative Study of Exclusive Smokers, ENDS Users, and Transitioning Smokers or ENDS Users in the Time of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: To better understand the various influences of COVID-19 on tobacco use, we examined three different tobacco user groups using qualitative methods. METHODS: Ten online focus groups with 61 adults from the Atlanta, GA area were held in October-November 2020: four with exclusive smokers (n = 16), three with Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) users (dual and exclusive, n = 22), and three with transitioning (recently quit or currently quitting) smokers and/or ENDS users (n = 23). RESULTS: Exclusive smokers reported smoking more frequently, driven by COVID-19-related stress, time at home, and boredom. They were not motivated to quit during the pandemic, and some considered smoking to be protective against COVID-19. ENDS users reported vaping less, with dual users often increasing their smoking; many were concerned about health effects of smoking and ENDS use during the pandemic. Transitioning smokers/ENDS users worried about their health and wanted to quit, but many found the stress of COVID-19 unbearable without tobacco use. CONCLUSIONS: There were some similarities among the groups, but also pronounced differences. Educational campaigns should capitalize on the teachable moment of COVID-19 to increase perceived risk of smoking. Smokers need access to more adaptive ways to deal with stress (such as mindfulness training) in lieu of smoking and systems-level approaches should address structural determinants of health that cause high levels of stress. The proposed policy to lower nicotine in combusted tobacco products might help smokers choose other means of coping instead of cigarettes by reducing the stress-relieving properties of smoking particularly salient during the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: Smokers believe that cigarettes help them deal with the stresses and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. This needs to be counteracted by educational campaigns to increase perceived harm of smoking, alternative stress-relief strategies, and mandated changes to the combusted tobacco products to make them less appealing.

Messaging about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to influence policy attitudes, harm perceptions and smoking motivations: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: To reduce smoking and the harms it causes, countries, including the USA, are considering policies to reduce nicotine in combustible tobacco to minimally addictive levels. Effective messages about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) and this policy are crucial in combating misperceptions threatening the policy's effectiveness. DATA AND METHODS: A discrete choice experiment assessed messages about VLNCs. Participants were 590 adults who smoked exclusively, 379 adults who both smoked and used e-cigarettes, 443 adults who formerly smoked and 351 young adults who never smoked (total n=1763). Seven message attributes were varied systematically (source, harm, chemicals, nicotine, satisfaction, addictiveness and quitting efficacy). Outcomes were selection of messages that generated the most positive attitude towards reduced nicotine policy, the greatest perceived harmfulness of VLNCs, and most strongly motivated quitting and initiating behaviour for VLNCs. RESULTS: Information about specific harms and chemicals of VLNCs had the largest effects on selection of messages as eliciting more negative attitudes towards VLNCs policy, increasing perceived VLNC harmfulness, increasing motivation to quit VLNCs and decreasing motivation to try VLNCs. Messages with information about quitting efficacy were selected as more motivating to quit among those who smoke, but also more motivating to try VLNCs among those who do not smoke. CONCLUSION: Harm and chemical information can be prioritised to ensure VLNCs are not misperceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Messages about increased quitting efficacy and reduced addictiveness associated with VLNCs may backfire if presented to those who do not smoke.

Disparities among smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examination of COVID-19-related worries by sociodemographic factors in a U.S. Nationally representative survey.

Low-socioeconomic status (SES) and certain racial/ethnic minority groups disproportionately experience tobacco-related disease and death. Underserved populations of smokers may be at disproportionate risk for elevated stress and worry related to basic needs and healthcare during the pandemic, which could impede smoking cessation and exacerbate health disparities. This study examined whether experiences with stress and worry among smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic differed by sociodemographic factors, and whether these factors predicted serious psychological distress (SPD). Data came from an October-November 2020 U.S. national representative survey of 1,223 current cigarette smokers. Analyses examined associations between sociodemographic factors with COVID-19-related worries and past-month SPD. Worry in most domains (e.g., food, housing, finances, healthcare) was more prevalent among participants with less than high school education, income less than $30,000, and those who were unemployed. Women and participants aged 30-44, with income less than $30,000, with less than high school education, not working/disabled, or on Medicaid were more likely to experience SPD. Examined separately, each COVID-19 worry predicted higher likelihood of SPD. In adjusted models, COVID-19 worries about finances (aOR = 2.3) and isolation/loneliness (aOR = 3.0) uniquely predicted SPD. Among U.S. adult smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic, those with lower SES indicated disproportionately high worry about access to basic needs and were more likely to experience SPD. Policies and interventions that address basic needs and mental health among marginalized populations of tobacco users are needed.

Perceptions of Nicotine Reduction Policy in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. METHODS: In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. RESULTS: While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.

Trust in COVID-19 information sources and perceived risk among smokers: A nationally representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Public health officials have classified smoking as a risk factor for COVID-19 disease severity. Smokers generally have less trust in health experts than do nonsmokers, leading to reduced risk perceptions. This study addresses smokers' trust in information sources about COVID-19 and how trust is associated with perceived COVID-19 susceptibility and severity among smokers. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A nationally representative sample of 1,223 current smokers were surveyed between October and November 2020, indicating their level of trust in COVID-19 information sources, and their perceptions of risk from COVID-19. Multiple differences in trustworthiness emerged; smokers trusted their personal doctor for information about COVID-19 more than other information sources, while news media were generally distrusted. In addition, the FDA was trusted less than the NIH and CDC. Several "trust gaps" were observed, indicating disparities in levels of trust associated with gender, ethnicity, education, and political orientation, which had the strongest association with trust of all factors. Political orientation was also a significant predictor of COVID-19 risk perceptions, but there was no independent effect of political orientation when accounting for trust, which was predictive of all risk perception outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trusted sources, such as personal doctors, may most effectively convey COVID-19 information across political orientations and sociodemographic groups. News media may be ineffective at informing smokers due to their low credibility. The results suggest that trust may explain the apparent effect of political orientation on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Implications for researchers, communication professionals, and policy makers are discussed.

Addicted to smoking or addicted to nicotine? A focus group study on perceptions of nicotine and addiction among US adult current smokers, former smokers, non-smokers and dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels. This study qualitatively explored perceptions of nicotine and addiction, both independently and in response to messages communicating about nicotine reduction. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. Participants described their perceptions of nicotine and addiction and their responses to messages about the nicotine reduction. SETTING: Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA, USA. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted virtually in Spring 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Exclusive smokers (n = 27), dual users (of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes) (n = 25), former smokers (n = 32) and young adult non-smokers (n = 31). MEASUREMENT: Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted, and results were compared across smoking status groups. FINDINGS: Participants across all smoking status groups associated nicotine with tobacco products, but consistently misperceived that nicotine caused disease. Perceptions of addiction were largely negative and varied by smoking status. Experienced smokers (exclusive smokers, former smokers and dual users) differentiated tobacco use from other addictions and minimized their own experiences of addiction. Perceptions of addiction across experienced smokers included not only the chemical properties of nicotine, but also the behavioral aspects of tobacco use, including oral fixation, having a smoking routine and response to internal and external cues. In response to messages, many believed that removing the nicotine would not make cigarettes less addictive because of the multi-factorial nature of smoking addiction that includes non-pharmacological cues. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of nicotine and addiction among non-smokers, former smokers, exclusive smokers and dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes vary based on smoking status, but there is a common tendency to believe that nicotine is addictive, that addiction results from more than just nicotine, and that very low nicotine cigarettes will not necessarily reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes.

Associations between COVID-19 risk perceptions and smoking and quitting behavior among U.S. adults.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic may impact cigarette smokers' behaviors. Among smokers, perceptions about the risks of contracting COVID-19 and the severity of COVID-19 illness likely vary, and perceptions may be associated with individual smoking behavior. Our study measured smokers' perceptions of COVID-19 risks and their association with smoking and quitting outcomes. METHODS: A sample of 1,223 U.S. adult cigarette smokers participated in an online survey in October-November 2020 to assess their COVID-19-related risk perceptions and changes in smoking, readiness to quit, and quit attempts during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: More smokers believed smoking could increase the severity of COVID-19 (43.6%, 95% CI: 40.1, 47.3) than believed smoking makes them more susceptible to COVID-19 (20.0%, 95% CI: 17.2, 23.0.). While there were no associations between perceptions of COVID-19 susceptibility and smoking behaviors or intentions, perceptions of greater smoking-related COVID-19 severity were associated with both higher likelihood of smoking increases (aOR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.19, 3.93) and greater readiness to quit smoking (aOR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.30). Greater perceptions of general COVID-19 severity were associated with higher likelihood of smoking reductions (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.22), greater readiness to quit smoking (aOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.22), and higher likelihood of making a quit attempt (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.22). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers' perceptions about COVID-19 severity are related to their smoking behavior and likelihood of making a quit attempt. Providing smokers with accurate information on the relationship between smoking and the severity of COVID-19 may alter smoking behaviors.

Confidant Network and Interpersonal Communication Associations with Depression in Older Adulthood.

Social networks contribute to the well-being and longevity of older adults, yet very little research to date has attempted to identify communicative mechanisms that explain the link between social networks and health. This study identified and tested two communicative mechanisms, openness and criticism, as mediators between confidant network size, confidant network density, and depression in a sample of 2,249 Americans over the age of 60. The data suggest that openness with friends and family mediate the relationship between network factors (size and density) and depression, while criticism from friends and family also mediate the relationship between network properties (size and density) and depression but less consistently (e.g., friend criticism only mediated the relationship with density). In general, network size appears to increase exposure to the positive outcomes of openness but also increase the negative outcomes of criticism; the role of network density is more complicated. The varied direction of the mediation associations are discussed along with implications for network and communication theorists and those who work with older adults.