Search

Background: The science surrounding e-cigarettes and other electronic vaping products (EVPs) is rapidly evolving, and the health effects of vaping are unclear. Little research has explored how individuals respond to information acknowledging scientific uncertainty. The aim of the present study was to understand the impact of messages about scientific uncertainty regarding the health effects of vaping on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions., Methods: Adults in an online experiment (n = 2508) were randomly exposed to view either a control message (a short factual statement about EVPs) or an uncertainty message (the control message plus additional information describing why EVP-related research is limited or inconclusive). Participants rated the risks of vaping and their intentions to try or stop vaping., Results: Individuals who viewed the uncertainty message rated vaping as less risky than those who viewed the control message. Message exposure did not impact intentions to try vaping soon or intentions to stop vaping in the next 6 months., Conclusions: Acknowledging scientific uncertainty made EVP use seem less risky. Future research should explore possible drivers of this response, such as deeper message processing or emotional reactions. Researchers and practitioners designing public health campaigns about vaping might consider a cautious approach to presenting information about scientific uncertainty., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nicotine harms adolescent brain development and contributes to addiction. Some adolescents report using nicotine-free e-cigarettes, but the accuracy of their reporting is unclear. We explored adolescents' use of nicotine-free e-cigarettes and understanding of chemicals in e-cigarettes, including nicotine., Methods: Using social media, we recruited 1589 US adolescents (aged 15-17) who reported past 30-day use of e-cigarettes in 2016. We assessed perceptions of the nicotine source in e-liquid and whether e-cigarette aerosol is just "water vapor." We explored differences among adolescents who usually used e-cigarettes with nicotine (n = 473) and without nicotine (n = 452). We used weights to calibrate our sample to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey., Results: Twenty-nine percent usually used e-cigarettes without nicotine, 28% with nicotine, 39% with "both," and 5% were "not sure." Few participants (17% of non-nicotine users vs. 34% of nicotine users, p < .001) understood the nicotine was derived from tobacco. Youth who thought e-cigarette aerosol was just water vapor were more likely to usually use without nicotine. Older adolescents and current tobacco users were less likely to usually use without nicotine., Conclusions: The adolescents who reported usually using e-cigarettes without nicotine had poorer knowledge of e-cigarettes. This lack of understanding could contribute to inaccurate reporting of nicotine use. Most youth thought the nicotine in e-cigarettes was artificial, potentially indicating a belief that this nicotine is "safer." The US Food & Drug Administration will require nicotine warnings on e-cigarettes in 2018; a complementary educational campaign could address youths' misperceptions about nicotine and other chemicals in e-cigarette aerosol., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Measuring perceptions associated with e-cigarette use can provide valuable information to help explain why youth and adults initiate and continue to use e-cigarettes. However, given the complexity of e-cigarette devices and their continuing evolution, measures of perceptions of this product have varied greatly. Our goal, as members of the working group on e-cigarette measurement within the Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) network, is to provide guidance to researchers developing surveys concerning e-cigarette perceptions. We surveyed the 14 TCORS sites and received and reviewed 371 e-cigarette perception items from seven sites. We categorized the items based on types of perceptions asked, and identified measurement approaches that could enhance data validity and approaches that researchers may consider avoiding. The committee provides suggestions in four areas: (1) perceptions of benefits, (2) harm perceptions, (3) addiction perceptions, and (4) perceptions of social norms. Across these 4 areas, the most appropriate way to assess e-cigarette perceptions depends largely on study aims. The type and number of items used to examine e-cigarette perceptions will also vary depending on respondents' e-cigarette experience (i.e., user vs. non-user), level of experience (e.g., experimental vs. established), type of e-cigarette device (e.g., cig-a-like, mod), and age. Continuous formative work is critical to adequately capture perceptions in response to the rapidly changing e-cigarette landscape. Most important, it is imperative to consider the unique perceptual aspects of e-cigarettes, building on the conventional cigarette literature as appropriate, but not relying on existing conventional cigarette perception items without adjustment., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)