Dataset Information

Perceptions of cigarette pack inserts promoting cessation and dissuasive cigarettes among young adult smokers in the UK: a cross-sectional online survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore young adult smokers' perceptions of cigarette pack inserts promoting cessation and cigarettes designed to be dissuasive.

Design

Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting

UK.

Participants

The final sample was 1766 young adult smokers, with 50.3% male and 71.6% white British. To meet the inclusion criteria, participants had to be 16-34 years old and smoke factory-made cigarettes.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Salience of inserts, perceptions of inserts as information provision, perceptions of inserts on quitting, support for inserts and perceived appeal, harm and trial of three cigarettes (a standard cigarette, a standard cigarette displaying the warning 'Smoking kills' and a green cigarette).

Results

Half the sample indicated that they would read inserts with three-fifths indicating that they are a good way to provide information about quitting (61%). Just over half indicated that inserts would make them think more about quitting (53%), help if they decided to quit (52%), are an effective way of encouraging smokers to quit (53%) and supported having them in all packs (55%). Participants who smoked factory-made cigarettes and other tobacco products (compared with exclusive factory-made cigarette smokers), had made a quit attempt within the last 6?months (compared with those that had never made a quit attempt) or were likely to make a successful quit attempt in the next 6?months (compared with those unlikely to make a quit attempt in the next 6?months) were more likely to indicate that inserts could assist with cessation. Multivariable logistic regression modelling suggested that compared with the standard cigarette, the cigarette with warning (adjusted OR=17.71; 95%?CI 13.75 to 22.80) and green cigarette (adjusted OR=30.88; 95%?CI 23.98 to 39.76) were much less desirable (less appealing, more harmful and less likely to be tried).

Conclusions

Inserts and dissuasive cigarettes offer policy makers additional ways of using the pack to reduce smoking.

SUBMITTER: Moodie CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6129040 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUse of e-cigarettes (inhalable vapour producing battery powered devices that aim to simulate tobacco cigarettes), is rising in a number of countries, but as yet none of these products are regulated as medicinal devices or available as smoking cessation treatments. Smokers seeking support from health professionals to stop smoking are interested in e-cigarettes and may be buying them to aid a quit attempt. Determining what smokers are asking, and what health professionals think about these products may have implications for smoking treatment services in a number of countries.MethodsStop smoking service advisors, managers and commissioners in the United Kingdom were asked to take part in two surveys on e-cigarettes. Data was analysed from 587 practitioners who completed a survey in 2011 and 705 practitioners who completed a repeat survey in 2013. Responses to multiple choice questions and free text comments were analysed.ResultsResponding practitioners reported that interest in, and use of, e-cigarettes is growing among adults seeking help to stop smoking in the UK. In 2013 91% of respondents reported that interest in e-cigarettes had grown in the past year and whilst in 2011, 2% of respondents reported a 'quarter to a half' of their clients saying that they were regularly using e-cigarettes, by 2013 this had increased to 23.5% (p < .001). Responding practitioners' views towards e-cigarettes became more positive between the first and second surveys (15% strongly agreed/agreed in 2011 that 'e-cigarettes are a good thing' rising to 26% in 2013). However, they continued to have concerns about the products. In particular, analysis of free text responses suggested practitioners were unsure about safety or efficacy for smoking cessation, and were worried that smokers may become dependent on the products. Practitioners were also aware of the potential of e-cigarettes to undermine smokers' willingness to use evidence-based methods to stop, and to challenge policies aiming to denormalise tobacco smoking.ConclusionsHealth professionals are asking for reliable and accurate information on e-cigarettes to convey to smokers who want to quit. Randomized controlled trials and ongoing surveillance of e-cigarette use and its consequences for smoking cessation rates and smoking treatment services are required.

Project description:ObjectivesAs tobacco companies can circumvent tax increases, a minimum retail price per-cigarette/per-gram of roll-your-own tobacco presents an additional mechanism for governments to reduce smoking. We examined (1) anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price-per-cigarette/per-gram among smokers in the UK; (2) what demographic and smoker characteristics are associated with anticipated responses; and (3) whether minimum pricing may help ex-smokers stay quit.DesignCross-sectional survey (May-July 2019).SettingUK.ParticipantsAdult cigarette smokers (n=2412) and ex-smokers (n=700).Main outcome measurementsAnticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price of £10.00 for 20 cigarettes (£0.50 per-cigarette) and £13.50 for 30 grams of roll-your-own tobacco (£0.45 per-gram); approximately £0.10 per-cigarette/per-gram increases on the cheapest prices in leading UK supermarkets (January 2019). Smokers were presented with ten options (eg, 'Try to quit') and asked which they would do (Yes/No) and then which they would most likely do. Ex-smokers were asked to what extent the minimum prices would help them stay quit (A lot vs Lesser agreement).ResultsAmong smokers, 55.6% said they would most likely smoke the same amount, 10.7% they would smoke less, 9.5% they would try to quit and 5.8% they would use e-cigarettes more often. Anticipated reactions were associated with demography and smoker characteristics, for example, C2DE (lower social grade) smokers were less likely than ABC1 (higher social grade) smokers to say they would smoke the same as they do now (ORAdj=0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.88). Among ex-smokers, 38.5% said the minimum prices would help them stay quit 'A lot', more so among C2DE than ABC1 participants (ORAdj=1.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.49).ConclusionsIn response to a hypothetical minimum price for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco, approximately a fifth of smokers in the UK indicated they would smoke less or quit and almost two-fifths of ex-smokers indicated the prices would help them stay quit.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cannabis and tobacco couse is common and could expose users to higher levels of toxicants. No studies have examined biomarkers of toxicant exposure in cousers of cannabis and cigarettes, compared with cigarette smokers (CS). AIMS AND METHODS:Adult daily CS were recruited from 10 US sites for a study of reduced nicotine cigarettes. In this analysis of baseline data, participants were categorized as either cousers of cannabis and tobacco (cousers; N = 167; urine positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-??9-tetrahydrocannnabinol and self-reported cannabis use ?1×/week), or CS (N = 911; negative urine and no self-reported cannabis use). Participants who did not meet either definition (N = 172) were excluded. Self-reported tobacco and cannabis use and tobacco and/or combustion-related biomarkers of exposure were compared between groups. RESULTS:Compared to CS, cousers were younger (couser Mage = 38.96, SD = 13.01; CS Mage = 47.22, SD = 12.72; p < .001) and more likely to be male (cousers = 67.7%, CS = 51.9%, p < .001). There were no group differences in self-reported cigarettes/day, total nicotine equivalents, or breath carbon monoxide, but cousers had greater use of non-cigarette tobacco products. Compared to CS, cousers had higher concentrations of 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid, S-phenylmercapturic acid, 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (ps < .05), and phenanthrene tetraol (p < .001). No biomarkers were affected by number of cannabis use days/week or days since last cannabis use during baseline (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS:Cousers had higher concentrations of biomarkers of exposure than CS, but similar number of cigarettes per day and nicotine exposure. Additional studies are needed to determine whether cannabis and/or alternative tobacco products are driving the increased toxicant exposure. IMPLICATIONS:Cousers of cannabis and tobacco appear to be exposed to greater levels of harmful chemicals (ie, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), but similar levels of nicotine as CS. It is unclear if the higher levels of toxicant exposure in cousers are due to cannabis use or the increased use of alternative tobacco products compared with CS. It is important for studies examining biomarkers of exposure among CS to account for cannabis use as it may have a significant impact on outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed examining exposure to harmful chemicals among cannabis users.

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate about the benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes (ECs). To better understand the risk-benefit ratio of ECs, more information is needed about net nicotine consumption and toxicant exposure of cigarette smokers switching to ECs.MethodsForty cigarette smokers (?1 year of smoking) interested in switching to ECs but not necessarily quitting smoking were enrolled in a 4-week observational study and provided an e-Go C non-variable battery and refillable atomizers and choice of eight flavors in 12 or 24 mg nicotine dosage. Measurement of urinary cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; a pulmonary carcinogen), and eight volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents was conducted at baseline and week 4.ResultsAll participants with follow-up data (92.5%) reported using the study EC. Of the 40 smokers, 16 reported no cigarettes at week 2 (40%) and six continued to report no cigarettes at week 4 (15%). Change in nicotine intake over the 4 weeks was non-significant (p = .90). Carbon monoxide (p < .001), NNAL (p < .01) and metabolites of benzene (p < .01) and acrylonitrile (p = .001) were significantly decreased in the study sample. Smokers switching exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period demonstrated significant reductions in metabolites of ethylene oxide (p = .03) and acrylamide (p < .01).ConclusionSmokers using ECs over 4 weeks maintained cotinine levels and experienced significant reductions in carbon monoxide, NNAL, and two out of eight measured VOC metabolites. Those who switched exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period significantly reduced two additional VOCs.ImplicationsThis study extends current literature by measuring change in smoking dependence and disease-associated biomarkers, NNAL and a panel of eight common VOCs that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents in smokers who switch to ECs. The findings support the idea of harm reduction, however some levels of toxicant exposure are still of clinical concern, particularly for dual users. Extrapolation of these results must be careful to separate the different toxic exposure results for exclusive switchers versus dual cigarette + EC users, and not to equate harm reduction with the idea that using ECs is harmless.