Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
Assessing the impact of a reduced chemical exposure claim in advertisements for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among youth and young adults.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen-Sankey Julia, Mercincavage Melissa, La Capria Kathryn, Jeong Michelle, Strasser Andrew A, Delnevo Cristine D, Wackowski Olivia A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We tested whether e-cigarette advertisements (ads) with a claim of reduced chemical exposure (RCE) and various brands impact e-cigarette-related perceptions among young people.
METHODS: A randomized, 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment was embedded in a web-based survey of youth (ages 13-17) and young adults (ages 18-29) who smoke cigarettes (n = 1667) or who do not use tobacco (n = 833). Participants viewed 1 of 6 e-cigarette ad conditions that varied according to 2 manipulated factors: RCE claim (present or absent) and e-cigarette brand (Logic Power, Vuse Vibe, or Njoy Ace). After viewing the ad, perceptions about the ad and the promoted e-cigarette product in the ad were assessed.
RESULTS: We did not observe an e-cigarette brand effect or interactive effects between the two main factors on any outcomes. Among those who smoke, the RCE claim generated increased perceptions that the ad made them want to use (P = .039) or completely switch to the e-cigarette (P = .048). Among those who do not use tobacco, it led to elevated perceptions that the e-cigarette is less addictive than cigarettes (P = .034) and intentions of using the e-cigarette compared to cigarettes (P = .009).
CONCLUSION: E-cigarette ads containing a RCE claim may be perceived as more effective in influencing product use and complete switching intentions among young people who smoke. While we did not observe such an effect among those who do not use tobacco, future efforts to promote e-cigarette MRTP claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among this audience to mitigate the potential for unintended effects.
IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates the potential influence of reduced chemical exposure (RCE) claims in advertisements (ads) for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among young adults who smoke, suggesting that such claims may enhance the perceived effectiveness of advertising. Although we found few significant effects among tobacco-naïve youth and young adults, any efforts to promote e-cigarette RCE claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among these young audiences to mitigate the potential for unintended effects. These results will be critical to understanding how RCE claims in e-cigarette ads may differentially shape e-cigarette-related perceptions and behaviors across young people of diverse tobacco-use groups.
METHODS: A randomized, 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment was embedded in a web-based survey of youth (ages 13-17) and young adults (ages 18-29) who smoke cigarettes (n = 1667) or who do not use tobacco (n = 833). Participants viewed 1 of 6 e-cigarette ad conditions that varied according to 2 manipulated factors: RCE claim (present or absent) and e-cigarette brand (Logic Power, Vuse Vibe, or Njoy Ace). After viewing the ad, perceptions about the ad and the promoted e-cigarette product in the ad were assessed.
RESULTS: We did not observe an e-cigarette brand effect or interactive effects between the two main factors on any outcomes. Among those who smoke, the RCE claim generated increased perceptions that the ad made them want to use (P = .039) or completely switch to the e-cigarette (P = .048). Among those who do not use tobacco, it led to elevated perceptions that the e-cigarette is less addictive than cigarettes (P = .034) and intentions of using the e-cigarette compared to cigarettes (P = .009).
CONCLUSION: E-cigarette ads containing a RCE claim may be perceived as more effective in influencing product use and complete switching intentions among young people who smoke. While we did not observe such an effect among those who do not use tobacco, future efforts to promote e-cigarette MRTP claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among this audience to mitigate the potential for unintended effects.
IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates the potential influence of reduced chemical exposure (RCE) claims in advertisements (ads) for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among young adults who smoke, suggesting that such claims may enhance the perceived effectiveness of advertising. Although we found few significant effects among tobacco-naïve youth and young adults, any efforts to promote e-cigarette RCE claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among these young audiences to mitigate the potential for unintended effects. These results will be critical to understanding how RCE claims in e-cigarette ads may differentially shape e-cigarette-related perceptions and behaviors across young people of diverse tobacco-use groups.