IntroductionCommunicating to smokers that e-cigarettes deliver lower levels of harmful chemicals than combusted cigarettes is a challenging issue. This study qualitatively explored smokers’ interpretations of messages communicating the risk of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes (comparative risk messages).MethodWe developed 12 print comparative risk messages and evaluated them in 12 focus groups with 72 adult smokers (18+ years old) in Atlanta, Georgia.ResultsParticipants interpreted uncertainty about health effects of e-cigarettes as an indicator of significant unknown risks, which some believed to be potentially more severe than the known effects of cigarettes (such as cancer and heart disease). Also, participants were sceptical about the lower risk claims. Some participants misinterpreted what ‘switching completely’ or ‘switching 100% of the time’ means, perceiving switching from e-cigarettes to combusted cigarettes as comparable with the use of both products. When chemicals in e-cigarettes were mentioned (eg, nicotine or formaldehyde), participants viewed e-cigarettes as very harmful and had difficulty reconciling this belief with the reduced risk claim. Comparative risk messages emphasising smoking risks were perceived as effective. Participants also appreciated being given an option to switch if they cannot quit. Participants suggested the inclusion of more facts and statistics and a credible message source (eg, public health agencies) to increase message effectiveness.ConclusionComparative risk messages may be more acceptable to smokers if they show direct comparisons of the number of toxic chemicals in cigarettes and e-cigarettes, are attributed to a credible source(s), and emphasise smoking risks.

No abstract

Objectives Our study explores the experiences of early career and senior scientists regarding mentorship and career trajectories in tobacco regulatory science (TRS). Methods We conducted 22 phone interviews with early career and senior tobacco regulatory scientists from July 2015 to January 2016. All interviews were conducted using a structured interview guide and analyzed using a thematic approach by 2 independent coders. Results TRS presents specific opportunities and challenges to scientists due to its focused goal of informing tobacco regulation. An understanding of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) research priorities and how science can inform tobacco regulation are essential for effective mentorship in TRS. Careers in TRS can be pursued in various academic and non-academic professional roles; both offer the distinct ability to conduct science that impacts public policy. Early career and senior scientists identified the importance and challenge of providing broad training across the diverse disciplines of TRS. Conclusions Effective mentorship in TRS requires that mentors possess an in-depth understanding of the scientific, regulatory, and legislative processes inherent to tobacco regulatory policy-making. A training program for mentors specific to TRS has the potential to meet diverse professional needs of mentors and mentees aiming to impact tobacco policy.