Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33753549›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2022

'95% less harmful'? Exploring reactions to quantitative modified risk claims for snus and e-cigarettes.

Olivia A Wackowski, Richard J O'Connor, Destiny Diaz, Mariam Rashid, M Jane Lewis, Kathryn Greene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olivia A WackowskiCenter for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA wackowol@sph.rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9159-5473
Richard J O'ConnorDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Destiny DiazDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Mariam RashidCenter for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
M Jane LewisCenter for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5866-8909
Kathryn GreeneDepartment of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

Perceptions and Impact of Modified Risk Tobacco Product Communication MessagesR37CA222002 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2018 to 2023
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222002
6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsTobacco, SmokelessVapingAdolescentAdultAgedHumansMiddle AgedSmokersYoung Adultelectronic nicotine delivery devicesharm reductionnon-cigarette tobacco products

Identifiers

PMID33753549
PMCPMC8455704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.