Dataset Information

E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Given the lack of regulation on marketing of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States and the increasing exchange of e-cigarette-related information online, it is critical to understand how e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and how the public engages with e-cigarette information.

Methods

Results are from a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on e-cigarettes via a PubMed search through June 1, 2017. Search terms included: "e-cigarette*" or "electronic cigarette" or "electronic cigarettes" or "electronic nicotine delivery" or "vape" or "vaping." Experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, and mixed methods studies providing empirical findings on e-cigarette marketing and communication (ie, nonmarketing communication in the public) were included.

Results

One hundred twenty-four publications on e-cigarette marketing and communication were identified. They covered topics including e-cigarette advertisement claims/promotions and exposure/receptivity, the effect of e-cigarette advertisements on e-cigarette and cigarette use, public engagement with e-cigarette information, and the public's portrayal of e-cigarettes. Studies show increases in e-cigarette marketing expenditures and online engagement through social media over time, that e-cigarettes are often framed as an alternative to combustible cigarettes, and that e-cigarette advertisement exposure may be associated with e-cigarette trial in adolescents and young adults.

Discussion

Few studies examine the effects of e-cigarette marketing on perceptions and e-cigarette and cigarette use. Evidence suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertisements affects perceptions and trial of e-cigarettes, but there is no evidence that exposure affects cigarette use. No studies examined how exposure to e-cigarette communication, particularly misleading or inaccurate information, impacts e-cigarette, and tobacco use behaviors.

Implications

The present article provides a comprehensive review of e-cigarette marketing and how the public engages with e-cigarette information. Studies suggest an association between exposure to e-cigarette marketing and lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, intention to use e-cigarettes, and e-cigarette trial, highlighting the need to for advertising regulations that support public health goals. Findings from this review also present the methodological limitations of the existing research (primarily due to cross-sectional and correlational analyses) and underscore the need for timely, rigorous research to provide an accurate understanding of e-cigarette marketing and communication and its impact on e-cigarette and tobacco product use.

SUBMITTER: Collins L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6610165 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information.

Collins Lauren L Glasser Allison M AM Abudayyeh Haneen H Pearson Jennifer L JL Villanti Andrea C AC

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 20190101 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Given the lack of regulation on marketing of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States and the increasing exchange of e-cigarette-related information online, it is critical to understand how e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and how the public engages with e-cigarette information.<h4>Methods</h4>Results are from a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on e-cigarettes via a PubMed search through June 1, 2017. Search terms included: "e-cigarette ...[more]

PMID: 29315420

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed lowering the nicotine content of cigarettes to a minimally addictive level to increase smoking cessation and reduce initiation. This study has two aims: (1) to determine when cigarette manufacturers had the technical capability to reduce cigarette nicotine content and (2) to estimate the lost public health benefits of implementing a standard in 1965, 1975, or 1985.MethodsTo determine the technical capability of cigarette companies, we reviewed public patents and internal cigarette company business records using the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. To evaluate the impact of a very low nicotine content cigarette (VLNC) standard on smoking attributable deaths (SADs) and life-years lost (LYLs), we applied a validated (CISNET) model that uses past smoking data, along with estimates of the potential impact of VLNCs derived from expert elicitation.ResultsCigarette manufacturers recognized that cigarettes were deadly and addictive before 1964. Manufacturers have had the technical capability to lower cigarette nicotine content for decades. Our model projected that a standard implemented in 1965 could have averted 21 million SADs (54% reduction) and 272 million LYLs (64% reduction) from 1965 to 2064, a standard implemented in 1975 could have averted 18.9 million SADs and 245.4 million LYLs from 1975 to 2074, and a standard implemented in 1985 could have averted 16.3 million SADs and 211.5 million LYLs from 1985 to 2084.ConclusionsMillions of premature deaths could have been averted if companies had only sold VLNCs decades ago. FDA should act immediately to implement a VLNC standard.ImplicationsPrior research has shown that a mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce the prevalence of smoking and improve public health. Here we report that cigarette manufacturers have had the ability to voluntarily implement such a standard for decades. We use a well-validated model to demonstrate that millions of smoking attributable deaths and life-years lost would have been averted if the industry had implemented such a standard.

Project description:BackgroundDespite having access to medically necessary care available through publicly funded provincial health care systems, some Canadians travel for treatment provided at international medical facilities as well as for-profit clinics found in several Canadian provinces. Canadians travel abroad for orthopaedic surgery, bariatric surgery, ophthalmologic surgery, stem cell injections, "Liberation therapy" for multiple sclerosis, and additional interventions. Both responding to public interest in medical travel and playing an important part in promoting the notion of a global marketplace for health services, many Canadian companies market medical travel.MethodsResearch began with the goal of locating all medical tourism companies based in Canada. Various strategies were used to find such businesses. During the search process it became apparent that many Canadian business promoting medical travel are not medical tourism companies. To the contrary, numerous types of businesses promote medical travel. Once businesses promoting medical travel were identified, content analysis was used to extract information from company websites. Company websites were analyzed to establish: 1) where in Canada these businesses are located; 2) the destination countries and health care facilities that they market; 3) the medical procedures they promote; 4) core marketing messages; and 5) whether businesses market air travel, hotel accommodations, and holiday tours in addition to medical procedures.ResultsSearches conducted from 2006 to 2011 resulted in identification of thirty-five Canadian businesses currently marketing various kinds of medical travel. The research project began with what seemed to be the straightforward goal of establishing how many medical tourism companies are based in Canada. Refinement of categories resulted in the identification of eighteen businesses fitting the category of what most researchers would identify as medical tourism companies. Seven other businesses market regional, cross-border health services available in the United States and intranational travel to clinics in Canada. In contrast to medical tourism companies, they do not market holiday tours in addition to medical care. Two companies occupy a narrow market niche and promote testing for CCSVI and "Liberation therapy" for multiple sclerosis. Three additional companies offer bariatric surgery and cosmetic surgery at facilities in Mexico. Four businesses offer health insurance products intended to cover the cost of obtaining privately financed health care in the U.S. These businesses also help their clients arrange treatment beyond Canada's borders. Finally, one medical travel company based in Canada markets health services primarily to U.S. citizens.ConclusionsThis article uses content analysis of websites of Canadian companies marketing medical travel to provide insight into Canada's medical travel industry. The article reveals a complex marketplace with different types of companies taking distinct approaches to marketing medical travel.

Project description:Importance:Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines. Objective:To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability. Exposures:Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin). Results:From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of $11.5 trillion, gross profit of $8.6 trillion, EBITDA of $3.7 trillion, and net income of $1.9 trillion, while 357 S&P 500 companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion, and net income of $9.4 trillion. In bivariable regression models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies (gross profit margin: 76.5% vs 37.4%; difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 32.5%-45.7%]; P?<?.001; EBITDA margin: 29.4% vs 19%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 7.1%-13.7%]; P?<?.001; net income margin: 13.8% vs 7.7%; difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 2.5%-9.7%]; P?<?.001). The differences were smaller in regression models controlling for company size and year and when considering only companies reporting research and development expense (gross profit margin: difference, 30.5% [95% CI, 20.9%-40.1%]; P?<?.001; EBITDA margin: difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 5.2%-13.2%]; P?<?.001; net income margin: difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.011%-7.2%]; P?=?.05). Conclusions and Relevance:From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable.

Project description:Introduction. Retail settings are major channels for the tobacco industry to market commercial tobacco products. However, few studies have examined marketing strategies on Tribal lands. The resulting evidence is important, especially given that American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth and adults have the highest smoking prevalence of any racial/ethnic group in the United States. In this study, we examined cigarette, e-cigarette, and vape/vaporizer availability, advertising, and price-reducing promotions in retail settings on and within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands in California. Method. Trained AI/AN community health representatives (n = 8) conducted store observations (n = 96) using a checklist adapted from the Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings observation tool. Chi-square analyses were performed to look for potential differences in availability, exterior advertising, and price promotions for cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and vapes between stores. Results. All stores sold cigarettes and over 95% sold menthol cigarettes. Nearly 25% of stores on Tribal lands were located inside a casino, and 40.4% of stores on Tribal lands offered a Tribal member discount. Stores within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands sold significantly (p < .01) more e-cigarettes (69.8%), including flavored e-cigarettes (53.4%), compared to stores on Tribal lands (37.7% and 28.3%, respectively). Price promotions for cigarettes were significantly (p < .01) more common in stores located within a 1-mile radius of Tribal lands (46.5%) than stores on Tribal lands (22.6%). Discussion. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use store observations to examine cigarette and e-cigarette availability, advertising, and price promotions in retail settings on and near California Tribal lands. We recommend future studies build on our initial efforts to take an AI/AN Tribal community-engaged approach in assessing and documenting tobacco marketing practices on and near Tribal lands. Tribal governments can consider tobacco policies to help reduce smoking disparities and advance health equity for their communities.

Project description:ImportancePopulation-level health outcomes associated with e-cigarettes depend in part on the association between e-cigarettes and combustible cigarette cessation. The US Food and Drug Administration has authority to regulate e-cigarette characteristics, including flavor and device type.ObjectiveTo investigate whether e-cigarette characteristics are associated with cigarette cessation behaviors among adults in the US population who use e-cigarettes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted using longitudinal data collected in 2014 to 2021 by the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a population-based, US nationally representative study. Participants were sampled from the civilian noninstitutionalized population using a 4-staged, stratified sampling design. Data were weighted and analyzed from 1985 adults ages 21 or older who smoked cigarettes daily and had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021 to May 2024.ExposuresThe following e-cigarette characteristics were assessed: use frequency (daily and nondaily), flavor type (tobacco, menthol or mint, sweet, and combination), device type (disposable, cartridge, and tank), and year of data collection as a proxy for the evolving e-cigarette marketplace.Main outcomes and measuresThe following cigarette cessation behaviors were assessed: making a cigarette quit attempt, cigarette cessation among individuals who made a quit attempt, and overall cigarette discontinuation regardless of quit attempts. Associations were evaluated between e-cigarette characteristics (assessed at baseline in 1 approach and assessed at follow-up in another approach) and cigarette cessation outcomes, controlling for demographic, cigarette smoking, and other e-cigarette use characteristics.ResultsThe study sample consisted of 1985 participants representing adults in the population (mean age, 40.0 years [95% CI, 39.2-40.9 years]; 49.4% [95% CI, 46.3%-52.6%] male; 11.4% [95% CI, 9.6%-13.4%] Black, 80.7% [95% CI, 77.8%-83.3%] White, and 8.0% [95% CI, 6.3%-10.0%] other race; 9.2% [95% CI, 7.5%-11.2%] Hispanic). Daily vs nondaily e-cigarette use was associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (12.8% [95% CI, 9.1%-17.7%] vs 6.1% [95% CI, 4.8%-7.7%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.26 [95% CI, 1.34-3.81]), and use of e-cigarettes in 2019 to 2021 vs 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 was also associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (12.0% [95% CI, 8.8%-16.0%] vs 5.3% [95% CI, 2.9%-9.3%]; aOR, 2.75 [95% CI, 1.13-6.67]). Use of menthol or mint vs tobacco flavor e-cigarettes was associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (9.2% [95% CI, 6.6%-12.8%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.0%-7.1%]; aOR, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.32-5.27]) only when assessing e-cigarette use at baseline. E-cigarette device type was not associated with cigarette discontinuation rates in adjusted analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, daily e-cigarette use and use of e-cigarettes in 2019 to 2021 were consistently associated with greater cigarette discontinuation rates. These findings suggest that research focused on e-cigarettes marketed in recent years is needed to inform product regulation and public health policy decisions.

Dataset Information

E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Implications

Publications

E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets