ArticleTobacco control2022
'95% less harmful'? Exploring reactions to quantitative modified risk claims for snus and e-cigarettes.
Article in Tobacco control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of a reduced chemical exposure claim in advertisements for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among youth and young adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Trial
- Randomized experimental test of a reduced-exposure message for an e-cigarette: comprehension and related misperceptions.Health education research · 2025Trial
- Comparative effects of alternate tobacco products and traditional tobacco smoking on various organ/systems: A guide to regulators and health policy makers.Toxicology reports · 2025Review
- Racial and ethnic variation in perceived relative harm of tobacco and nicotine products: an experimental study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Association Between Harm Perceptions and Tobacco Behaviors Among Adults Who Smoke Cigarettes: Differential Associations Across Age Groups Using the PATH Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- Using Eye tracking to Examine Young Adults' Visual Attention to E-cigarette Advertising Features and Associated Positive E-cigarette Perceptions.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024Article
- Emerging ENDS products and challenges in tobacco control toxicity research.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Corporate communication of the relative health risks of IQOS through a webchat service.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Exploring the implications of modified risk claim placement in tobacco advertising.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Responses to reduced nicotine cigarette marketing features: a systematic review.Tobacco control · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesStudies 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.
designWe 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.
resultsSeveral 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.
conclusionsQuantitative 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.