Search

Risk perception is an important construct in many health behavior theories. Smoking risk perceptions are thoughts and feelings about the harms associated with cigarette smoking. Wide variation in the terminology, definition, and assessment of this construct makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the associations of risk perceptions with smoking behaviors. To understand optimal methods of assessing adults' cigarette smoking risk perceptions (among both smokers and nonsmokers), we reviewed best practices from the tobacco control literature, and where gaps were identified, we looked more broadly to the research on risk perceptions in other health domains. Based on this review, we suggest assessments of risk perceptions (1) about multiple smoking-related health harms, (2) about harms over a specific timeframe, and (3) for the person affected by the harm. For the measurement of perceived likelihood in particular (ie, the perceived chance of harm from smoking based largely on deliberative thought), we suggest including (4) unconditional and conditional items (stipulating smoking behavior) and (5) absolute and comparative items and including (6) comparisons to specific populations through (7) direct and indirect assessments. We also suggest including (8) experiential (ostensibly automatic, somatic perceptions of vulnerability to a harm) and affective (emotional reactions to a potential harm) risk perception items. We also offer suggestions for (9) response options and (10) the assessment of risk perception at multiple time points. Researchers can use this resource to inform the selection, use, and future development of smoking risk perception measures., Implications: Incorporating the measurement suggestions for cigarette smoking risk perceptions that are presented will help researchers select items most appropriate for their research questions and will contribute to greater consistency in the assessment of smoking risk perceptions among adults., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Beginning in the 1960s in the USA and globally since 1998, tobacco companies have beenaggressively promoting heated tobacco products (HTP). In 2016, Philip Morris International (PMI) applied to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking authorisation to market their IQOS HTP system and flavoured 'HeatSticks' in the USA as a modified-risk tobacco product (MRTP)., Methods: We systematically evaluated the publicly available data PMI submitted to FDA in its MRTP application to determine whether PMI's IQOS product meets the US Tobacco Control Act's standard for MRTP claims. We examined whether PMI provided sufficient data showing tobacco users will not initiate with IQOS, that youth will not misperceive the MRTP-related claims being made concerning IQOS, and how youth perceive health risks associated with IQOS., Results: PMI's own studies failed to provide evidence that youth, including non-users and former users, will not find IQOS appealing, will not initiate use of IQOS and will not perceive these products as risk-free. Further, PMI did not refer to independent studies conducted among adolescents which could influence their conclusions. Finally, their studies suffered from design and implementation flaws and cannot be relied on to support the proffered claims., Conclusion: PMI's own data and available evidence from scientific studies conducted independent of the tobacco industry regarding how novel tobacco products are currently being marketed suggest that introduction of IQOS will result in adolescent and young adult non-users initiating tobacco use with IQOS and could also increase poly-use of IQOS along with other tobacco products., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are the most commonly used tobacco product among adolescents and young adults, and the new pod-based e-cigarette devices may put adolescents and young adults at increased risk for polytobacco use and nicotine dependence., Objective: To build an evidence base for perceptions of risk from and use of pod-based e-cigarettes among adolescents and young adults., Design, Setting, and Participants: In a survey study, a cross-sectional analysis was performed of data collected from April 6 to June 20, 2018, from 445 California adolescents and young adults as part of an ongoing prospective cohort study designed to measure the use and perceptions of tobacco products., Exposures: Use of pod-based e-cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cigarettes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Ever use, past 7-day use, and past 30-day use and co-use of pod-based e-cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cigarettes; use of flavors and nicotine in pod-based e-cigarettes and e-cigarettes; and associated perceptions of risks, benefits, and nicotine dependence., Results: Among 445 adolescents and young adults (280 females, 140 males, 6 transgender individuals, and 19 missing data; mean [SD] age, 19.3 [1.7] years) who completed wave 6 of the ongoing prospective cohort study, ever use information was provided by 437 respondents, of which 68 (15.6%) reported use of pod-based e-cigarettes, 133 (30.4%) reported use of e-cigarettes, and 106 (24.3%) reported use of cigarettes. The mean (SD) number of days that pod-based e-cigarettes were used in the past 7 days was 1.5 (2.4) and in the past 30 days was 6.7 (10.0). The mean (SD) number of days that other e-cigarettes were used in the past 7 days was 0.8 (1.8) and in the past 30 days was 3.2 (7.4). The mean (SD) number of days that cigarettes were used in the past 7 days was 0.7 (1.8) and in the past 30 days was 3.0 (7.6). Among ever users of pod-based e-cigarettes, 18 (26.5%) reported their first e-liquid was flavored menthol or mint and 19 (27.9%) reported fruit (vs 13 [9.8%] and 50 [37.6%] for other e-cigarettes). The mean perceived chance of experiencing social risks and short-term and long-term health risks from the use of either pod-based e-cigarettes or other e-cigarettes was 40% and did not differ statistically by e-cigarette type. Among 34 adolescents and young adults reporting any loss of autonomy from nicotine, there was no difference in mean (SD) Hooked On Nicotine Checklist scores between those using pod-based e-cigarettes (2.59 [3.14]) and other e-cigarettes (2.32 [2.55])., Conclusions and Relevance: Use by adolescents and young adults of newer types of e-cigarettes such as pod-based systems is increasing rapidly, and adolescents and young adults report corresponding misperceptions and lack of knowledge about these products. Rapid innovation by e-cigarette manufacturers suggests that public health and prevention efforts appear to be needed to include messages targeting components common to all current and emerging e-cigarette products to increase knowledge and decrease misperceptions, with the goal to try to ultimately reduce e-cigarette use among adolescents and young adults.

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.)

Background: Across cancers, the decision to pursue genetic testing is influenced more by subjective than objective factors. However, skin cancer, which is more prevalent, visual, and multifactorial than many other malignancies, may offer different motivations for pursuing such testing., Objectives: The primary objective was to determine factors influencing the decision to receive genetic testing for skin cancer risk. A secondary objective was to assess the impact of priming with health questions on the decision to receive testing., Methods: We distributed anonymous online surveys through ResearchMatch.org to assess participant health, demographics, motivations, and interest in pursuing genetic testing for skin cancer risk. Two surveys with identical questions but different question ordering were used to assess the secondary objective., Results: We received 3783 responses (64% response rate), and 85.8% desired testing. Subjective factors, including curiosity, perceptions of skin cancer, and anxiety, were the most statistically significant determinants of the decision to pursue testing (P < .001), followed by history of sun exposure (odds ratio 1.85, P < .01) and history of skin cancer (odds ratio 0.5, P = .01). Age and family history of skin cancer did not influence this decision. Participants increasingly chose testing if first queried about health behaviors (P < .0001)., Limitations: The decision to pursue hypothetical testing may differ from in-clinic decision-making. Self-selected, online participants may differ from the general population. Surveys may be subject to response bias., Conclusion: The decision to pursue genetic testing for skin cancer is primarily determined by subjective factors, such as anxiety and curiosity. Health factors, including skin cancer history, also influenced decision-making. Priming with consideration of objective health factors can increase the desire to pursue testing., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)