Abstract
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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (273.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Benowitz N. L., Jacob P., 3rd, Slade J., Yu L. Nicotine content of the eclipse nicotine delivery device. Am J Public Health. 1997 Nov;87(11):1865–1866. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.11.1865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Biener L., Abrams D. B. The Contemplation Ladder: validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1991;10(5):360–365. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.10.5.360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs--United States, 1995-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002 Apr 12;51(14):300–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Cigarette smoking among adults--United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003 Oct 10;52(40):953–956. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DiClemente C. C., Prochaska J. O., Fairhurst S. K., Velicer W. F., Velasquez M. M., Rossi J. S. The process of smoking cessation: an analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Apr;59(2):295–304. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.59.2.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hurt R. D., Robertson C. R. Prying open the door to the tobacco industry's secrets about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial. JAMA. 1998 Oct 7;280(13):1173–1181. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.13.1173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shiffman S., Pillitteri J. L., Burton S. L., Rohay J. M., Gitchell J. G. Smokers' beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes. Tob Control. 2001;10 (Suppl 1):i17–i23. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shiffman Saul, Gitchell Joe G., Warner Kenneth E., Slade John, Henningfield Jack E., Pinney John M. Tobacco harm reduction: conceptual structure and nomenclature for analysis and research. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4 (Suppl 2):S113–S129. doi: 10.1080/1462220021000032717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shopland D. R. Historical perspective: the low tar lie. Tob Control. 2001;10 (Suppl 1):i1–i3. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thun M. J., Burns D. M. Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence. Tob Control. 2001;10 (Suppl 1):i4–11. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Warner K. E., Slade J. Low tar, high toll. Am J Public Health. 1992 Jan;82(1):17–18. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.1.17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]