Wackowski Olivia A, O'Connor Richard J, Diaz Destiny, Rashid Mariam, Lewis M Jane, Greene Kathryn
Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Tob Control. 2022 Nov;31(6):730-736. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056303. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
Studies examining perceptions of 'modified risk tobacco product' (MRTP) messages for e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have indicated consumers want statistics and quantification of harm reduction. However, limited research exists on reactions to quantitative MRTP messages.
We conducted 12 focus groups in the USA in 2019-6 focused on e-cigarette messages and 6 on snus messages. Eight groups were with current smokers (ages 21-66) and four with young adult (ages 18-25) non-smokers (n=57). Participants discussed messages stating that use of snus and vaping products have been estimated by scientists to be about 90% and 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes, respectively.
Several participants agreed the messages strongly communicated that the products are less harmful than cigarettes, were attention getting and could be 'convincing'. However, participants expressed scepticism about the source and accuracy of the stated figures, and some noted the claims could be misleading and attractive to young people. Comments also reflected some claim misunderstandings (eg, that e-cigarettes only pose a 5% chance of harm). Participants also agreed that stating e-cigarette risks 'are unlikely to exceed 5% of cigarette smoking harms' was confusing and less impactful than the '95% less harmful' wording.
Quantitative claims suggesting high levels of reduced risk when comparing e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco/snus relative to cigarettes may be successful in gaining attention and being persuasive for some audiences, particularly, if from more credible sources. However, message developers, users and evaluators should be mindful of message limitations and aim to mitigate unintended consequences.
有关对电子烟和无烟烟草的“改良风险烟草产品”（MRTP）信息认知的研究表明，消费者希望获得危害降低方面的统计数据和量化信息。然而，针对定量MRTP信息反应的研究却很有限。
2019年我们在美国开展了12个焦点小组——6个聚焦于电子烟信息，6个聚焦于口含烟信息。8个小组由现吸烟者（年龄在21 - 66岁之间）组成，4个小组由年轻成年（年龄在18 - 25岁之间）非吸烟者组成（n = 57）。参与者讨论了这样的信息：科学家估计使用口含烟和电子烟产品造成的危害分别比吸烟低约90%和95%。
一些参与者一致认为这些信息有力地传达了这些产品比香烟危害小的观点，能吸引注意力且“有说服力”。然而，参与者对所述数据的来源和准确性表示怀疑，一些人指出这些说法可能会误导年轻人且对他们有吸引力。评论还反映出一些对说法的误解（例如，认为电子烟造成危害的几率仅为5%）。参与者还一致认为，声称电子烟风险“不太可能超过吸烟危害的5%”令人困惑，且不如“危害降低95%”的措辞有影响力。
在将电子烟或无烟烟草/口含烟与香烟进行比较时，表明风险大幅降低的定量说法可能会成功吸引某些受众的注意并具有说服力，特别是如果来源更可靠的话。然而，信息开发者、使用者和评估者应注意信息的局限性，并旨在减轻意外后果。
