Tobacco control · 2025
Effects of exposure to snus marketing with versus without modified risk tobacco product claims on snus use intention and perceived harm among young adults.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Whaley Reid C, Vogel Erin A, Clementel Ariana Coba, Barrington-Trimis Jessica L, McConnell Rob, Liu Feifei, Sussman Steve, Harlow Alyssa F, Unger Jennifer B, Tackett Alayna P, Leventhal Adam M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We tested whether snus marketing with modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims: (a) promotes accurate knowledge about snus's health effects in young adults and (b) encourages use intentions in only those who use combustible tobacco without attracting other young adult populations.
METHODS: A randomised between-subjects experiment was embedded in a 2020 web survey of participants from Los Angeles (aged 19-23 years). Participants viewed mass-marketed snus advertising materials with (n=1212) vs without (n=1225) US Food and Drug Administration-authorised MRTP claims. After advertising exposure, snus use intention and perceptions of snus harms relative to cigarettes or e-cigarettes were measured.
RESULTS: Advertisements with versus without MRTP claims did not affect snus use intention (18.0% vs 19.4%) but produced a higher prevalence of perceptions that snus was less harmful than cigarettes (12.6% vs 9.1%; p=0.007) and e-cigarettes (8.0% vs 5.8%; p=0.04). MRTP claim exposure effects did not differ by past 30-day e-cigarette or combustible tobacco use. Snus use intentions after marketing exposure, collapsed across MRTP claim conditions, were higher in those who did versus did not report past 30-day use of e-cigarettes (38.4% vs 14.3%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.95 (2.28 to 3.81); p<0.001) or combustible tobacco (44.0% vs 16.2%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.26 (1.62 to 3.16); p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Although some young adults who vape or smoke may have snus use intentions, snus MRTP claims might not affect young adults' snus use intentions, regardless of whether they vape/smoke. MRTP claims might modestly increase the accuracy of perceived harms of snus relative to cigarettes while also slightly causing unsubstantiated perceptions of lower harm than e-cigarettes.
METHODS: A randomised between-subjects experiment was embedded in a 2020 web survey of participants from Los Angeles (aged 19-23 years). Participants viewed mass-marketed snus advertising materials with (n=1212) vs without (n=1225) US Food and Drug Administration-authorised MRTP claims. After advertising exposure, snus use intention and perceptions of snus harms relative to cigarettes or e-cigarettes were measured.
RESULTS: Advertisements with versus without MRTP claims did not affect snus use intention (18.0% vs 19.4%) but produced a higher prevalence of perceptions that snus was less harmful than cigarettes (12.6% vs 9.1%; p=0.007) and e-cigarettes (8.0% vs 5.8%; p=0.04). MRTP claim exposure effects did not differ by past 30-day e-cigarette or combustible tobacco use. Snus use intentions after marketing exposure, collapsed across MRTP claim conditions, were higher in those who did versus did not report past 30-day use of e-cigarettes (38.4% vs 14.3%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.95 (2.28 to 3.81); p<0.001) or combustible tobacco (44.0% vs 16.2%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.26 (1.62 to 3.16); p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Although some young adults who vape or smoke may have snus use intentions, snus MRTP claims might not affect young adults' snus use intentions, regardless of whether they vape/smoke. MRTP claims might modestly increase the accuracy of perceived harms of snus relative to cigarettes while also slightly causing unsubstantiated perceptions of lower harm than e-cigarettes.