Reducing Nicotine Without Misleading the Public: Descriptions of Cigarette Nicotine Level and Accuracy of Perceptions About Nicotine Content, Addictiveness, and Risk.

Clicks: 377
ID: 76665
2019
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.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #10 of 134 articles by views in nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the society for research on nicotine and tobacco

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 134 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create 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
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The public incorrectly believes very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes, a belief associated with lower motivation to quit under a VLNC standard. We examined how different descriptions of the nicotine level in VLNC cigarettes affect the accuracy of the public's perceptions about nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk.Participants were a national convenience sample of 1353 US adults (22% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomized participants to a VLNC description using (1) concise language; (2) a percentage; (3) an interpretation; (4) a percentage and interpretation; (5) a percentage and a pictograph; or (6) a percentage, interpretation, and pictograph; or to a control description using (7) FDA's "minimally or nonaddictive" phrasing. We assessed accuracy of perceived nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk compared to current cigarettes.Compared to control, the percentage description resulted in more accurate perceptions about nicotine content (76% vs. 49% accuracy) and addictiveness (44% vs. 34%), but less accurate perceptions about cancer risk (56% vs. 68%; all ps < .05). Adding interpretation or pictographs to the percentage description did not increase accuracy. The concise language description reduced accuracy of perceived nicotine content and addictiveness but increased accuracy of cancer risk (all ps < .05).Stating that 95% of nicotine would be removed more accurately conveyed the nicotine content and addictiveness of VLNC cigarettes. However, descriptions that better conveyed nicotine content and addictiveness misled people about cancer risk.Implementation of a VLNC standard should include plans for a communication campaign that conveys that VLNC cigarettes will be less addictive but equally toxic to smoke. Stating the percent reduction in nicotine is likely to more clearly communicate reduced addictiveness but may also exacerbate risk misperceptions. VLNC communication requires further study to ensure the public accurately understands a VLNC standard.
Reference Key
byron2019reducingnicotine Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Byron, M Justin;Hall, Marissa G;King, Jessica L;Ribisl, Kurt M;Brewer, Noel T;
Journal nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the society for research on nicotine and tobacco
Year 2019
DOI
10.1093/ntr/ntz161
URL
Keywords
collaboration indigenous community engagement ethnomedicine aboriginal bioactivity traditional medicine

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.