Table 3. Comparative perceptions of using JUUL vs. Vuse and sources of awareness about JUUL among adult smokers (N = 341).
| Comparative Perceptions of Using JUUL vs. Vuse | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More fun to use | Tastier | My friends would like more | Cooler | Better help quitting smoking | Less harmful to users | Less harmful to bystanders | Less addictive | |||
| AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |||
| General advertising | 1.30 (0.74, 2.31) | 3.45 (1.96, 6.07) | 0.96 (0.54, 1.70) | 1.41 (0.80, 2.48) | 2.01 (1.13, 3.55) | 2.39 (1.28, 4.45) | 2.54 (1.33, 4.83) | 1.84 (0.96, 3.53) | ||
| Print media ads | 0.73 (0.41, 1.33) | 1.62 (0.91, 2.87) | 0.61 (0.34, 1.09) | 0.86 (0.48, 1.55) | 2.03 (1.33, 3.65) | 1.05 (0.58, 1.87) | 2.52 (1.41, 4.55) | 0.66 (0.36, 1.22) | ||
| Internet ads | 2.04 (1.21, 3.42) | 1.96 (1.19, 3.22) | 0.86 (0.51, 1.43) | 1.33 (0.80, 2.23) | 1.62 (0.98, 2.68) | 1.51 (0.89, 2.57) | 1.74 (1.01, 2.99) | 1.67 (0.96, 2.90) | ||
| Direct mail/email | 0.47 (0.23, 0.99) | 1.59 (0.80, 3.16) | 0.78 (0.39, 1.56) | 1.56 (0.70, 3.17) | 0.87 (0.45, 1.72) | 0.74 (0.38, 1.49) | 1.19 (0.59, 2.40) | 1.29 (0.64, 2.57) | ||
| JUUL brand advertising | 0.93 (0.53, 1.64) | 0.80 (0.45, 1.41) | 1.12 (0.63, 1.95) | 1.79 (0.92, 3.09) | 1.60 (0.92, 4.15) | 1.84 (1.05, 3.24) | 1.28 (0.72, 2.29) | 1.56 (0.88, 2.80) | ||
| JUUL sponsored events | 0.43 (0.26, 1.10) | 0.62 (0.31, 1.23) | 1.08 (0.55, 2.12) | 1.48 (0.72, 3.01) | 0.88 (0.44, 1.75) | 0.89 (0.45, 1.76) | 1.47 (0.74, 2.92) | 1.10 (0.55, 2.19) | ||
| JUUL outdoor ads | 1.00 (0.47, 2.12) | 1.37 (0.64, 2.95) | 0.41 (0.17, 0.95) | 1.16 (0.52, 2.56) | 2.10 (0.95, 4.64) | 2.08 (0.97, 4.47) | 1.13 (0.52, 2.45) | 2.03 (0.93, 4.44) | ||
| JUUL website/social media | 1.07 (0.56, 2.07) | 0.76 (0.40, 1.47) | 1.21 (0.63, 2.32) | 1.70 (0.84, 3.41) | 0.86 (0.45, 1.66) | 1.23 (0.65, 2.37) | 1.19 (0.61, 2.31) | 1.45 (0.74, 2.81) | ||
| Social circle | 0.88 (0.52, 1.48) | 1.40 (0.83, 2.33) | 1.58 (0.95, 2.64) | 1.58 (0.95, 2.64) | 1.33 (0.79, 2.24) | 0.54 (0.31, 0.96) | 1.21 (0.70, 2.09) | 0.64 (0.36, 1.16) | ||
| Word-of-mouth | 0.66 (0.35, 1.24) | 1.40 (0.77, 2.52) | 1.56 (0.86, 2.82) | 1.29 (0.70, 2.36) | 1.04 (0.57, 1.90) | 0.49 (0.24, 0.96) | 0.89 (0.46, 1.70) | 0.53 (0.26, 1.08) | ||
| Friends and family’s social media | 1.24 (0.62, 2.51) | 1.09 (0.55, 2.19) | 1.54 (0.76, 3.05) | 0.60 (0.25, 1.05) | 1.47 (0.73, 2.96) | 0.83 (0.39, 1.73) | 2.10 (1.03, 4.26) | 1.17 (0.55, 2.47) | ||
| News stories on TV/radio/online | 0.74 (0.37, 1.49) | 0.31 (0.15, 0.65) | 0.33 (0.14, 0.75) | 0.51 (0.25, 1.03) | 0.73 (0.36, 1.49) | 0.50 (0.23, 1.11) | 0.57 (0.25, 1.29) | 0.43 (0.18, 1.03) | ||
| Physical Store | 1.15 (0.47, 2.78) | 0.87 (0.36, 2.12) | 0.60 (0.22, 1.65) | 0.40 (0.15, 1.07) | 0.42 (0.15, 1.15) | 0.15 (0.03, 0.69) | 0.41 (0.13, 1.31) | 0.31 (0.08, 1.13) | ||
1. The regression model for each source of awareness controlled for covariates.
2. The reference group of those models was having no exposure to the particular source of awareness
3. The models examined the exposure to five general categories of sources and ten individual sources.