'The lesser devil you don't know': a qualitative study of smokers' responses to messages communicating comparative risk of electronic and combusted cigarettes
'The lesser devil you don't know': a qualitative study of smokers' responses to messages communicating comparative risk of electronic and combusted cigarettes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054883
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Popova, Lucy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Owusu, Daniel;Lawley, Rachel;Popova, Lucy
向吸烟者传达电子烟比燃烧的香烟提供更低水平的有害化学物质是一个具有挑战性的问题。这项研究定性地探讨了吸烟者对传达电子烟相对于香烟风险的信息的理解(比较风险信息)。方法我们在乔治亚州亚特兰大的12个焦点小组中对72名成年吸烟者(18岁以上)进行了12条印刷的比较风险信息的评估。结果参与者将电子烟对健康影响的不确定性解读为重大未知风险的指标，一些人认为这种风险可能比香烟的已知影响(如癌症和心脏病)更严重。此外，参与者对风险较低的索赔持怀疑态度。一些参与者错误地理解了“完全转换”或“100%转换”的含义，认为从电子烟转换为燃烧香烟与使用这两种产品相当。当提到电子烟中的化学物质(如尼古丁或甲醛)时，参与者认为电子烟非常有害，很难将这一信念与降低风险的说法相一致。强调吸烟风险的比较风险信息被认为是有效的。参与者也很感激，如果他们不能戒烟，可以选择改换。与会者建议纳入更多的事实和统计数据以及可信的信息来源(如公共卫生机构)，以提高信息的有效性。结论比较风险信息如果能直接比较香烟和电子烟中有毒化学物质的数量，归因于可靠的来源(S)，并强调吸烟风险，可能更容易被吸烟者接受。
Introduction Communicating 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).Method We developed 12 print comparative risk messages and evaluated them in 12 focus groups with 72 adult smokers (18+ years old) in Atlanta, Georgia.Results Participants 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.Conclusion Comparative 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.