Search

E-cigarette use among youth presents a public health risk. Yet, cigarette smokers who substantially reduce their smoking or switch completely from traditional combustible cigarettes could benefit. As science about e-cigarettes is continually emerging, any potential warnings are likely to contain uncertain language. Hedged verbiage may impact decision making. To assess reactions, we conducted 16 online focus groups; 8 with youth (n = 32, grouped by gender and by vaping experience) and 8 with adult tobacco users (n = 37, grouped by smokers, dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and former smokers who switched to e-cigarettes). Each focus group viewed and discussed 8 potential warnings messages. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the reactions to warning messages that contain uncertain language. Respondents’ reactions were often negative, but varied based on specific usages of uncertainty, existing beliefs about uncertainty in law and science, and smoking/vaping use patterns that supported the use of uncertainty related to e-cigarettes. Many youth (and some adults) believed that uncertain language enabled audiences to minimize the likelihood of harm or interpreted it as meaning there are both healthy and unhealthy e-cigarettes. This qualitative study provides evidence that the use of types of uncertain language, the frequency of that use, and/or the selection of particular words in warnings, might not achieve the intended public health aims of increasing understanding of risk, deterring youth uptake, and/or facilitating a substantial switch from cigarettes. The use of certain types of uncertain language appears to have significant potential to bring unintended consequences. Suggestions for research and policy are included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: A warning on e-cigarette packaging is one way the U.S. government can inform the public of known harms of e-cigarette use. Currently, the only required warning on these products is: "WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical." This exploratory study aims to inform potential future investigations and FDA decisions regarding alternative warnings that may generate fear in addition to being intentionally informational. Method: Data were obtained from responses by 16 online focus groups with adult (N = 47, age range = 18–64) and youth (N = 32, age range 14–16) participants with various smoking and vaping experiences. We showed each focus group a set of hypothetical e-cigarette warning labels to determine how they respond to currently existing public statements that communicate information on the toxicity of ingredients in e-cigarettes, potential health risks, addiction to nicotine, and the uncertainty of the science regarding health effects of using these products. The focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were subjected to a multiphase coding process to identify common response themes. Codes derived from the Extended Parallel Processing Model were then applied to understand impact of potentially fear-inducing language by warning category and age group. Results: For adults, all warnings—except those about addiction—gave rise to spontaneous danger control (intended) responses, such as quit intentions. Warnings highlighting cognitive and uncertain effects may be particularly promising for adult consumers of tobacco products because both gengerated danger control and response efficacy without evidence of fear control. However, responses also suggest that warnings risk discouraging some adults who use combustible cigarettes from transitioning to e-cigarettes for harm reduction. For youth, while evidence of response efficacy and danger control emerged among youth exposed to messages in all warning categories but one–addiction—unproductive reactions indicative of fear control were also prevalent among youth respondent across most warning types. On average, youth were more skeptical than adults about the harms of using e-cigarettes. Policy implications: Implications of study findings for the development of future effective e-cigarette warning messages are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Under the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to implement graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packages. Neither the original labels proposed by the FDA nor the revised labels include a source to indicate sponsorship of the warnings. This study tests the potential impact of adding a sponsor to the content of GWLs.Methods: We recruited adult smokers (N = 245) and middle-school youth (N = 242) from low-income areas in the Northeastern US. We randomly assigned participants to view one of three versions of the original FDA-proposed warning labels in a between-subjects experiment: no sponsor, "US Food and Drug Administration," or "American Cancer Society" sponsor. We tested the effect of varying sponsorship on source attribution and source credibility.Results: Compared to unsponsored labels, FDA sponsorship increased source attributions that the FDA sponsored the labels among both middle-school, largely nonsmoking youth and adult smokers. However, sponsorship had no effect on source credibility among either population.Conclusions: We found no evidence that adding FDA as the source is likely to boost source credibility judgments, at least in the short term; though doing so would not appear to have adverse effects on credibility judgments. As such, our data are largely consistent with the Tobacco Control Act's provisions that allow, but do not require, FDA sponsorship on the labels.Implications: This study addresses the FDA's regulatory efforts by informing the possible design and content of future cigarette warning labels. Our results do not offer compelling evidence that adding the FDA name on GWLs will directly increase source credibility. Future work may test more explicit FDA source labeling and continue to examine the credibility of tobacco message content among high-priority populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires a warning about the addictive nature of nicotine to be placed on electronic cigarette advertisements and packaging. To consider the value of additional warning messages on public health outcomes, this study examines the additive effect of new warnings that are based on recent claims from U.S. federal authorities. We conducted a secondary analysis of recent data from 1,202 U.S. youth ages 14–17 to test the impact of exposure to additional warnings placed on advertisements for vaping products on cognitive elaboration, fear, and willingness to vape and smoke. This investigation also looked closely at effects on youth who may have increased risk of future vaping due to prior vaping experiences or having friends who vape. Exposure to the alternative warnings did not amplify cognitive elaboration compared to the current FDA warning alone, but it did increase fear. Youth elaboration on both the benefits and risks of vaping was associated with willingness to both vape and smoke, but fear was not associated with either outcome. The effects of warning label exposure and cognitive elaboration varied by prior vaping experience and having at least one friend who vapes. We conclude by discussing the implications of this contingent pattern of effect and association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

E-cigarette use among youth presents a public health risk. Yet, cigarette smokers who substantially reduce their smoking or switch completely from traditional combustible cigarettes could benefit. As science about e-cigarettes is continually emerging, any potential warnings are likely to contain uncertain language. Hedged verbiage may impact decision making. To assess reactions, we conducted 16 online focus groups; 8 with youth ( n  = 32, grouped by gender and by vaping experience) and 8 with adult tobacco users ( n  = 37, grouped by smokers, dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and former smokers who switched to e-cigarettes). Each focus group viewed and discussed 8 potential warnings messages. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the reactions to warning messages that contain uncertain language. Respondents' reactions were often negative, but varied based on specific usages of uncertainty, existing beliefs about uncertainty in law and science, and smoking/vaping use patterns that supported the use of uncertainty related to e-cigarettes. Many youth (and some adults) believed that uncertain language enabled audiences to minimize the likelihood of harm or interpreted it as meaning there are both healthy and unhealthy e-cigarettes. This qualitative study provides evidence that the use of types of uncertain language, the frequency of that use, and/or the selection of particular words in warnings, might not achieve the intended public health aims of increasing understanding of risk, deterring youth uptake, and/or facilitating a substantial switch from cigarettes. The use of certain types of uncertain language appears to have significant potential to bring unintended consequences. Suggestions for research and policy are included.