smokers’ and e-cigarette users’ perceptions about e-cigarette warning statements
Clicks: 284
ID: 216577
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
284 views
38 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #247 of 642 articles by views in archives of biochemistry and biophysics
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 642 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Cigarette warning labels are important sources of risk information, but warning research for other tobacco products is limited. This study aimed to gauge perceptions about warnings that may be used for e-cigarettes. We conducted six small focus groups in late 2014/early 2015 with adult current e-cigarette users and cigarette-only smokers. Participants rated and discussed their perceptions of six e-cigarette warning statements, and warnings in two existing Vuse and MarkTen e-cigarette ads. Participants were open to e-cigarette warnings and provided the strongest reactions to statements warning that e-liquid/e-vapor or e-cigarettes can be poisonous, contain toxins, or are “not a safe alternative to smoking”. However, many also noted that these statements were exaggerated, potentially misleading, and could scare smokers away from reducing their harm by switching to e-cigarettes. Opinions on the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed nicotine addiction warning and warnings that e-cigarettes had not been approved for smoking cessation or had unknown health effects were mixed. Participants perceived MarkTen’s advertisement warning to be stronger and more noticeable than Vuse’s. Care should be taken in developing e-cigarette warnings given their relative recentness and potential for harm reduction compared to other tobacco products. Additional research, including with varied audiences, would be instructive.
| Reference Key |
wackowski2016internationalsmokers
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Olivia A. Wackowski;David Hammond;Richard J. O’Connor;Andrew A. Strasser;Cristine D. Delnevo |
| Journal | archives of biochemistry and biophysics |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.3390/ijerph13070655
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.