Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34286827›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2022

The "Organic" Descriptor and Its Association With Commercial Cigarette Health Risk Expectancies, Subjective Effects, and Smoking Topography: A Pilot Human Laboratory Study.

Jennifer L Pearson, Mika Watanabe, Jennifer Sanchez, Suman Mann, Cara Drake, Melissa Mercincavage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Jennifer L PearsonDivision of Social and Behavioral Science/Health Administration and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1400-5932
Mika WatanabeDivision of Social and Behavioral Science/Health Administration and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Jennifer SanchezDivision of Social and Behavioral Science/Health Administration and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Suman MannDepartment of Psychology, School of Science, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Cara DrakeDivision of Social and Behavioral Science/Health Administration and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Melissa MercincavageCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Tobacco Industry Marketing CoreU54CA229973 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2018 to 2022
$18.8M
Laboratory-based Approaches to Understanding the Impact of Low Nicotine Content Cigarette Marketing on Young AdultsK07CA218366 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MERCINCAVAGE, MELISSA · 2018 to 2022
$767k
FDA HHSNCI NIH HHS K07 CA218366NCI NIH HHS U54 CA229973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this mixed-method pilot study was to: (1) examine whether the "organic" descriptor affects smokers' health risk expectancies, subjective ratings of smoking, and topography, and (2) describe how smokers interpret the "organic" descriptor and relate it to their subjective smoking experience.

methodsTwenty-two daily smokers (45.5% men, 81.8% non-Hispanic White, M (SD) age = 47.3 [12.7], M (SD) cigarettes/day = 14.5 [5.1]) completed a within-person laboratory study. Following a baseline session, smokers attended 2 experimental sessions where they smoked a study-provided cigarette (identical across conditions) paired with either an "organic" or conventional (e.g., no "organic") descriptor condition and completed subjective and behavioral measures. Participants completed a semi-structured interview at the last visit.

resultsRelative to the conventional cigarette, more participants rated the "organic" cigarette as healthier, having fewer chemicals, and having a more favorable burn rate (P's < 0.05). There were no differences in total puff volume by condition (P = 0.42). Stratifying by gender, men inhaled 225 ml (SE = 82.7) more in the conventional condition (P = 0.02); women inhaled 408 ml (SE = 233.3) more in the organic condition (P = 0.11). A common understanding of "organic" was that the product was "…less processed... like less chemicals and it's more natural." Some believed that "organic" cigarettes contained fewer chemicals, which in turn produced a "much cleaner and healthier smoking cigarette" and that they could "taste the difference."

conclusionsFindings support that smokers associate the "organic" descriptor with health and reduced harm. This descriptor may differentially impact puffing behavior by gender. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides qualitative and quantitative data regarding how the "organic" descriptor influences adult daily smokers' perceptions and use of cigarettes. After smoking two identical cigarettes described as "organic" and conventional (e.g., no "organic"), smokers expressed more problematic health expectancies about the "organic" cigarette condition, providing further empirical support that the "organic" descriptor is associated with expectancies of reduced harm. The source of reduced harm was understood to be fewer chemicals in the organic cigarette. Though preliminary, findings suggest that "organic" may differentially affect puffing behavior by gender.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesTobacco ProductsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSmokersSmoking

Identifiers

PMID34286827
PMCPMC8666116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.