Effects of a Fact Sheet on beliefs about the harmfulness of alternative nicotine delivery systems compared with cigarettes

Abstract

BackgroundThis study explored the value of providing information in a Fact Sheet to correct misperceptions about the relative harmfulness of nicotine replacement products (NRT) and smokeless tobacco (ST), when compared to cigarette smoking.MethodsFour convenience samples from different countries (Australia, UK, Sweden and USA) were surveyed concerning their beliefs about the relative harmfulness of smokeless tobacco and NRT. Study participants were given the Fact Sheet that explained that nicotine, as used by consumers, is not particularly harmful and explained why. They were resurveyed one week later regarding their beliefs about the relative harmfulness of smokeless tobacco and NRT and future intentions to use the products.ResultsIn all four samples knowledge increased by similar amounts and beliefs regarding the lower harmfulness of smokeless tobacco increased. However, misconceptions remained common and responses to belief measures were not always consistent. Likelihood of use of ST increased in all four samples after exposure to the Fact Sheet, but interest in NRT use only increased in the US sample.ConclusionsA Fact Sheet such as this one can help address misconceptions about NRT and smokeless tobacco, at least in the short term. However, as is true of most educational interventions, exposure to a single educational session is not sufficient to overcome misperceptions that smokers have about the relative harmfulness of oral versus combustible forms of nicotine delivery.

How do consumers perceive differences in risk across nicotine products? A review of relative risk perceptions across smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy and combustible cigarettes

“…and 21 31 33 42 46 74–76 Although in approximately one-third of samples (35%), a majority of respondents viewed NRT as less harmful than CCs, these findings should be interpreted with caution, given that in half of the samples (50%), there was insufficient information to ascertain whether a majority of respondents held a particular RRP. Sampling strategy had an effect on the results, whereby in a large minority of probability-based samples (40%), a majority of respondents perceived NRT and CCs as equally harmful, while in almost one-half (47%) of non-probability-based samples, a majority of respondents perceived NRT as less harmful than CCs.…”

“…Although limited, evidence from longitudinal and experimental studies indicates that RRPs can change over time or under certain conditions,32 46 highlighting their potential to serve as targets for health interventions. For instance, Borland et al 46 showed that an educational fact sheet could lower false relative health beliefs among smokers, potentially encouraging them to switch to products that carry less risk.…”

“…For instance, Borland et al 46 showed that an educational fact sheet could lower false relative health beliefs among smokers, potentially encouraging them to switch to products that carry less risk. Furthermore, Callery et al 43 demonstrated the plasticity of RRPs under various conditions involving a health warning label (text or pictorial) and a relative health-risk message (‘Using smokeless tobacco is less harmful than smoking cigarettes’).…”

“…Among the direct measures (n=50), question stems were either open (n=36),20 and 21 , 22 and 23 24A 24B 28–30 31a 32–33 35 39–40 43–49 51a 52–61 63 65 67 71 72 or closed (n=14) 31b 37–38 42a 42b 50 62 66 68 70 73–76. Among the direct measures (n=50), 36 were continuous,20 and 21 , 22 and 23 24A 24B 29 31a 31b 33 37 39–40 43–45 47–50 51a 52 54–56 58–60 62 63 65 66 71–76 9 were categorical,28 30 32 35 38 42a 42b 68 70 and 5 were mixed 46 53 57 61 67. Of the continuous measures (n=36), a majority involved a rating task (n=35),20 and 21 , 22 and 23 24A 24B 29 31a 31b 37 39–40 43–45 47–50 51a 52 54–56 58–60 62 63 65 66 71–76…”

Assessing Constituent Levels in Smokeless Tobacco Products: A New Approach to Engaging and Educating the Public

“…2,3,12 Borland et al 13 provided smokers with a fact sheet about the harmfulness of SLT and NRT relative to cigarettes; 1 week later, knowledge increased and smokers reported more interest in SLT (and to a lesser extent NRT), but misperceptions about the relative harm from SLT and NRT were still common. Biener, Bogen, and Connolly 2 found that adult smokers increased their perceptions of health risks associated with two brands of heated tobacco products (Eclipse and Advance) after receiving constituent information about them.…”