Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background It is unclear whether emerging synthetic tobacco-free nicotine superiority messages such as ‘better flavor and better experience’ and ‘no residual impurities of tobacco-derived nicotine’ may impact consumer perception and product choice between synthetic and tobacco-derived nicotine vaping products.
Methods Through a 2022 online survey of current e-cigarette users, we identified synthetic nicotine never users for randomisation into an embedded between-subjects experiment. The test group (n=186) viewed a tobacco-free nicotine message versus no message control (n=168). Multivariable regressions assessed messaging effects on three comparative measures between tobacco-free and tobacco-derived nicotine: harm perception, purchase intention and willingness to pay.
Results Participants (n=354; age, mean (SD)=34.6 (11.1) years old) were recruited from geographically diverse regions with 27.7% rural residents. The overall sample comprised 44.1% females, 73.5% non-Hispanic white and 71.8% daily e-cigarette users. Sociodemographics and tobacco use status were not significantly different between two randomised groups. The test group (vs control) reported a higher intention to use tobacco-free than tobacco-derived nicotine vaping products (adjusted OR (AOR)=2.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.4, p=0.006) and willingness to pay more for tobacco-free nicotine vaping products (AOR=2.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.8, p=0.02). Urban (vs rural) synthetic-naïve vapers had lower harm perception (AOR=2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.6, p=0.02) and higher intention to use tobacco-free than tobacco-derived nicotine vaping products (AOR=2.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.5, p=0.04); infrequent vapers were more willing to pay more for tobacco-free nicotine vaping products (AOR=1.1, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17, p=0.002).
Conclusion Tobacco-free nicotine marketing message may prompt the transition to and promote a price premium for such products. With the proliferation of products in the market, comprehensive regulation of emerging synthetic vaping products is needed.
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
- Public policy
- Surveillance and monitoring
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified data are available upon reasonable request to HD, Professor, 84375 Nebraska Medical Center, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 68198-4375 (daisy.dai@unmc.edu). (402) 559-5907.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified data are available upon reasonable request to HD, Professor, 84375 Nebraska Medical Center, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 68198-4375 (daisy.dai@unmc.edu). (402) 559-5907.
Footnotes
Contributors KR performed participant recruitment and data collection, contributed to the interpretation of findings and the draft of the initial manuscript and critically revised the manuscript. KS participated in data collection and data analysis, contributed to the interpretation of findings and critically revised the manuscript. HDD conceptualised and designed the study, participated in data collection, performed data analyses and interpretation of findings, drafted the initial manuscript and critically revised the manuscript. HDD is the guarantor.
Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse under award number R21DA054818 (PI: HD).
Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration. The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.