Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38657684›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2024

Perceptions of a reduced nicotine policy and predictors of policy support: A nationally representative U.S. survey.

Reed M Reynolds, James F Trasher, Bo Yang, Katherine C Henderson, David L Ashley, Emily E Hackworth, Charity A Ntansah, Di Pei, Lucy Popova

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Examining Spontaneous Cognitive and Emotional Reactions to Messages About Very Low Nicotine Cigarettes (VLNCs).Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Trial
  2. Reactions to a Hypothetical Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarette Policy Among Sexual- and Gender-Minoritized Communities: A Concept Mapping Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Reed M ReynoldsCommunication Department, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: reed.reynolds@umb.edu.
James F TrasherDepartment of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Bo YangDepartment of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Katherine C HendersonSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
David L AshleyTRSConsulting56 LLC, Lilburn, GA, USA.
Emily E HackworthDepartment of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Charity A NtansahDepartment of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Di PeiSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lucy PopovaSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Georgia State University · USUniversity of South Carolina · USUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Massachusetts Boston · US

Funding

Communicating about nicotine tobacco product standard in cigar productsR01CA239308 · NCI · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Lyudmila Popova · 2019 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA239308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (∼ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers.

methodsData were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated.

resultsIn adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy.

conclusionsEducational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion.

Indexed as

NicotineAdolescentAdultElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHealth PolicyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionSmoking CessationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationNicotineHealth promotionNational surveyPolicy misperceptionsPolicy supportReduced nicotine cigarettes

Identifiers

PMID38657684
PMCPMC11613944
OpenAlexW4395013832

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.