Evaluating the Impact of Waterpipe Tobacco Marketing Claims on Young Adults

项目摘要 水烟在美国年轻人中很普遍，大约有550万人 当前用户。吸烟与吸烟有许多相同的健康风险，但 消费者经常错误地认为WT吸烟比吸烟危害更小，成瘾性更小。 营销，包括包装设计和数字营销(网站和社交媒体)，是一种有效的工具 被烟草行业用来向消费者传达产品健康信息。食品与药品 美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)已经开始禁止在WT包装和营销中的某些声明。在部分下 911《家庭吸烟预防和烟草控制法》禁止制造商和零售商 做出未经授权的修改风险烟草产品(MRTP)声明，包括声明该产品 或其烟雾：(1)导致减少危害；(2)含有降低水平的或减少暴露于 (3)不含或不含物质；(4)使用修改后的风险描述符的陈述 例如轻、温和、低或类似的描述符。此外，制造商和零售商也被禁止 根据第903条在包装和营销方面作出虚假和误导性的声明。一些被禁止的索赔 很容易识别，但其他更难识别，因为在法律和隐含的 一些索赔的性质。需要证据，具体到WT包装和营销，以确定索赔和 确定它们对消费者伤害误解的影响，以便为未来的监管行动提供信息。建议数 研究将通过记录关于WT包装和数字营销(网站和 社交媒体)，以及这样的说法如何影响消费者的感知和尝试WT的意愿。在目标1中，我们 将通过全面的网站审查确定WT产品包装和数字营销，以确定 制造商(生产WT)和零售商(销售WT供现场使用，如S咖啡馆和休息室)。我们会 创建WT品牌和口味的抽样框，将从30个品牌中随机选择5种口味 购买包装。对于数字营销，我们将使用相同的30个WT制造商品牌和一个 随机抽取了30家拥有网站和社交媒体账户的零售商。我们将捕获所有网站内容 在Facebook和Instagram这两个最受欢迎的社交媒体平台上发布的20条最新帖子中 在年轻人中。在目标2中，我们将对在 目标1.然后我们将使用一个专家小组来确定在包装和数字中发现的声明 营销是被禁止的主张的例子。在目标3中，我们将进行一个随机的在线实验， 全国代表性的年轻人样本，以评估存在的违禁索赔对WT的影响 包装和数字媒体上关于年轻人尝试产品的意愿，对伤害的看法，以及 产品号召力。这些发现将帮助FDA确定消费者对哪些索赔的解读方式 法律禁止；这可能会促使FDA参与额外的规则制定，这样消费者就不会被误导。

Project Summary Waterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking in the U.S. is common among young adults, with approximately 5.5 million current users. WT smoking is associated with many of the same health risks as cigarette smoking, but consumers often erroneously believe WT smoking is less harmful and less addictive than cigarette smoking. Marketing, including package design and digital marketing (websites and social media), is an effective tool used by the tobacco industry to communicate product health information to consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun to prohibit certain claims on WT packaging and in marketing. Under Section 911 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers and retailers are prohibited from making unauthorized modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims, including statements that the product or its smoke: (1) results in reduced harm; (2) contains a reduced level of or presents a reduced exposure to a substance; (3) does not contain or is free of a substance; and (4) statements that use modified risk descriptors such as light, mild, low, or similar descriptors. In addition, manufacturers and retailers are also prohibited from making false and misleading claims on packaging and in marketing under Section 903. Some prohibited claims are easily identifiable, but others are more difficult to identify due to lack of specificity in the law and the implicit nature of some claims. Evidence is needed, specific to WT packaging and marketing, to identify claims and determine their influence on consumer harm misperceptions to inform future regulatory actions. The proposed study will address this gap by documenting claims on WT packaging and in digital marketing (websites and social media) and how such claims influence consumer perceptions and willingness to try WT. In Aim 1, we will identify WT product packaging and digital marketing through a comprehensive website review to identify manufacturers (who make WT) and retailers (who sell WT for onsite use, such as cafés and lounges). We will create a sampling frame of WT brands and flavors and will randomly select five flavors from 30 brand to purchase packaging. For digital marketing, we will use the same 30 brands of WT manufacturers and a random sample of 30 retailers with websites and social media accounts. We will capture all website content and 20 of the most recent posts from Facebook and Instagram, the two most popular social media platforms among young adults. In Aim 2, we will content analyze all of the packaging and digital marketing captured in Aim 1. We will then use an expert panel to determine whether claims found on packaging and in digital marketing are examples of prohibited claims. In Aim 3, we will conduct a randomized, online experiment with a nationally-representative sample of young adults to evaluate the impact of prohibited claims present on WT packaging and in digital media on young adults' willingness to try the product, perceptions of harm, and product appeal. The findings will help the FDA determine which claims consumers interpret in ways that the law prohibits; which could prompt the FDA to engage in additional rulemaking so consumers are not misled.