IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i15p6454-d1203609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Modified Tobacco Risk Products with Claims and Nicotine Features on Perceptions among Racial and Ethnic Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Teresa DeAtley

    (Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Andrea C. Johnson

    (Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Matthew D. Stone

    (Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA)

  • Janet Audrain-McGovern

    (Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Melissa Mercincavage

    (Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Andrew A. Strasser

    (Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

Research suggests consumers may misunderstand modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. We examined the effects of nicotine content across four tobacco products with and without MRTP claims among a racially and ethnically diverse sample of adults who do and do not smoke. Adults ( n = 1484) aged 21–65 completed an online experiment using a 2 × 2 × 4 mixed factorial design to examine the effects of tobacco product (Classic White Snus, IQOS, JUUL e-cigarette, and VLN cigarette) and nicotine content (high vs. low) stratified by MRTP claim (present vs. absent) across four outcomes: (1) likely to try (2) serious disease if used regularly, (3) least addictive, and (4) ease of quitting smoking. Not including an MRTP claim resulted in an increased likelihood of trying a product, decreased concern of serious disease, lower perceived addictiveness, and increased ease of quitting smoking. Participants selected low nicotine IQOS without a claim as the least likely to cause serious disease. Low nicotine JUUL, without a claim, was selected as least addictive and most likely to facilitate quitting. Intentions to try were highest for low nicotine JUUL. Participants selected low-nicotine products as less addictive than high nicotine products. Regulatory efforts should consider how MRTP claims interact with different product characteristics. Subtle differences exist across outcomes between racial and ethnic groups, which indicates that further research is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Teresa DeAtley & Andrea C. Johnson & Matthew D. Stone & Janet Audrain-McGovern & Melissa Mercincavage & Andrew A. Strasser, 2023. "Effects of Modified Tobacco Risk Products with Claims and Nicotine Features on Perceptions among Racial and Ethnic Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:15:p:6454-:d:1203609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/15/6454/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/15/6454/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Olivia A. Wackowski & Mariam Rashid & Kathryn L. Greene & M. Jane Lewis & Richard J. O’Connor, 2020. "Smokers’ and Young Adult Non-Smokers’ Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Hagai Levine & Zongshuan Duan & Yael Bar-Zeev & Lorien C. Abroms & Amal Khayat & Sararat Tosakoon & Katelyn F. Romm & Yan Wang & Carla J. Berg, 2023. "IQOS Use and Interest by Sociodemographic and Tobacco Behavior Characteristics among Adults in the US and Israel," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Michael L. Capella & Charles R. Taylor & Jeremy Kees, 2012. "Tobacco Harm Reduction Advertising in the Presence of a Government-Mandated Warning," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-259, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    2. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    3. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    4. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    6. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    7. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    8. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Ferry Efendi & Ching-Min Chen & Nursalam Nursalam & Nurul Wachyu Fitriyah Andriyani & Anna Kurniati & Susan Alison Nancarrow, 2016. "How to attract health students to remote areas in Indonesia: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 430-445, October.
    10. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2020. "Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1364-1377, November.
    11. Pham, Matthew V. & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Will Reducing the Calorie Content of School Lunches Affect Participation? Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Suburban Parents," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149816, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Lévesque, Ann & Kermagoret, Charlène & Poder, Thomas G. & L'Ecuyer-Sauvageau, Chloé & He, Jie & Sauvé, Sébastien & Dupras, Jérôme, 2021. "Financing on-farm ecosystem services in southern Quebec, Canada: A public call for pesticides reduction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    15. Pavlova, Milena & Hendrix, Marijke & Nouwens, Elvira & Nijhuis, Jan & van Merode, Godefridus, 2009. "The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 27-34, November.
    16. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    19. Dimitris Damigos & Christina Kaliampakou & Anastasios Balaskas & Lefkothea Papada, 2021. "Does Energy Poverty Affect Energy Efficiency Investment Decisions? First Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:15:p:6454-:d:1203609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.