Product perceptions of flavour capsule cigarettes by construct
| Construct | Study ID | Study design | Comparison | Main findings related to perceptions of flavour capsule cigarettes |
| Risk perceptions | ||||
| Perceived harm | Barrientos-Gutierrez et al 37 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View one and two capsule versus non-capsule packs | Less harmful (one capsule) |
| Brown et al 28 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | No different in harm | |
| Emond et al 31 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus menthol/regular | No different in harm | |
| Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | No different in harm | |
| Moodie et al 45 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | No different in harm | |
| Moodie et al 46 | Focus groups | View capsule versus standard cigarettes | Mixed views on harm | |
| Moodie et al 14 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus regular | No different in harm | |
| Schneller et al 42 | Randomised controlled | After smoking capsule crushed versus uncrushed | No different in harm | |
| Thrasher et al 41 | Cohort | Usual brand capsule versus regular premium | Less harmful (discount brands in Mexico, USA); no different (Australia) | |
| Outcome expectancies | ||||
| Smoothness on throat and lightness in taste | Cho and Thrasher30 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus regular | Lighter in taste and smoother on throat |
| Gilbert and Ewald48 | Interviews | Menthol capsule versus non-capsule | Lighter, milder, less harsh on throat | |
| Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Smoother taste (more likely among non-daily, former smokers and susceptible non-smokers than daily smokers) | |
| Thrasher et al 41 | Cohort | Usual brand capsule versus regular premium | Smoother (Australia, discount brands in Mexico, USA) and lighter (discount brands in Mexico) | |
| Pleasantness of taste, breath, smell | Gilbert and Ewald48 | Interviews | Menthol capsule versus non-capsule | Tastes more minty, sweeter, fresher, cleaner, more artificial; masks smell |
| Grilo et al 44 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Tastes better, masks smell of tobacco, easier to conceal | |
| Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Leaves breath more pleasant. | |
| Moodie et al 73 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Tastes better (among younger groups, mixed among older adults), fresher breath, smells less, easier to conceal | |
| Moodie et al 46 | Focus groups | View capsule versus standard cigarettes | Tastes more pleasant, like gum, fresher breath, smells less | |
| Wackowski et al 47 | Focus groups | Camel Crush versus regular menthol | Tastes like candy/gum, toothpaste/mouthwash, more minty, less of smoke | |
| Satisfaction/fun to smoke | Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More satisfying and fun to smoke, respectively (more likely among former smokers and susceptible non-smokers than daily smokers) |
| Thrasher et al 41 | Cohort | Usual brand capsule versus regular premium | More satisfying (Australia, discount brands in Mexico); no different (USA) | |
| Perceived impact on initiation quitting | Moodie et al 45 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Encourages non-smokers to experiment, smokers to consume more, and discourages attempts to quit. Like a starter cigarette |
| Moodie et al 46 | Focus groups | View capsule versus standard cigarettes | Makes it easier for non-smokers to try and smokers to use | |
| Consumer interest | ||||
| Brand awareness and recall | Abad-Vivero et al 39 | Cross-sectional, experimental | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | No more likely to be recalled. Pall Mall capsules among top brand varieties with highest levels of recognition and correct brand recall |
| Grilo et al 44 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | In general, able to identify | |
| Moodie et al 45 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Awareness greater among younger adults (16–35 years) than older groups | |
| Wackowski et al 47 | Focus groups | Camel Crush versus regular menthol | Participants across all age groups were familiar | |
| Perceived target audience and user associations | Brown et al 28 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Younger audience, including teens, young adults in their 20s, millennials, students and ‘party-goers’ |
| Grilo et al 44 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Young girls and women | |
| Moodie et al 45 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Young people, those who don’t like the taste of smoke, but want to look cool, and menthol smokers. Associated with e-cigarettes due to different flavours | |
| Moodie et al 46 | Focus groups | View capsule versus standard cigarettes | Children, young people. Those starting smoking, wanting to conceal smoking and wanting something different. Associated with being for special occasions, such as a party, wedding, prom or a night out | |
| Wackowski et al 47 | Focus groups | Camel Crush versus regular menthol cigarettes | Younger, newer smokers, those who like to play with stuff. Associated with toys and as being used by smokers occasionally for entertainment | |
| Appeal, attractiveness and preferred choice | Abad-Vivero et al 39 | Cross-sectional, experimental | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More attractive. Pall Mall and Camel capsules most often rated as very attractive |
| Barrientos-Gutierrez et al 37 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View one and two capsule versus non-capsule packs | More attractive (one capsule, two capsules. Menthol, normal branding and small health warning labels (30%), respectively, enhanced attractiveness | |
| Brown et al 28 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More attractive and most named as favourite pack because of the nice colours and the ‘button’ imagery that created expectations around taste | |
| Gilbert et al 48 | Interviews | Menthol capsule versus non-capsule | Improves and personalises the smoking experience because tastes fresher, lighter and more minty, and can decide when to crush the capsule | |
| Grilo et al 44 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Availability of different flavours, the colours, and presence of double capsules increased the appeal of the pack | |
| Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More attractive (more likely among non-daily, former smokers and susceptible non-smokers than daily smokers) and more stylish (more likely among former smokers than daily smokers) | |
| Moodie et al 45 | Focus groups | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More appealing among young people because novel, cool, fashionable, fun, can share with others, and can conceal. Older adults viewed as a gimmick | |
| Moodie et al 46 | Focus groups | View capsule versus standard cigarettes | More appealing than standard and menthol because high-tech, cool, novel, choice of flavours. Less appealing than pink coloured and slim cigarettes | |
| Thrasher et al 41 | Cohort | Usual brand capsule versus regular premium | More stylish (discount brands in Mexico, USA); no different (Australia) | |
| Wackowski et al 47 | Focus groups | Camel Crush versus regular menthol cigarettes | Reasons for popularity: flavour options, sharing between non-menthol and menthol smokers, fun and entertaining. Some saw as a gimmick | |
| Future use intentions | Abad-Vivero et al 39 | Cross-sectional, experimental | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | Greater likelihood of interest in trying (Pall Mall had greatest odds) |
| Barrientos-Gutierrez et al 37 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View one and two capsule versus non-capsule packs | Greater interest in trying (one and two capsule). Menthol, normal branding and small health warning labels, respectively, enhanced interest in trying | |
| Hoek et al 38 | Cross-sectional, DCE | View capsule versus non-capsule packs | More likely to try if offered by a friend | |
| Reasons for actual use or brand choice | Cho and Thrasher30 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus regular | More likely to choose brand because of taste |
| Emond et al 31 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus menthol or regular | More likely to choose brand because of taste, less expensive and the design of the pack | |
| Moodie et al 14 | Cross-sectional | Usual brand capsule versus regular | Reasons for using capsules (>20%): taste, smoother on airways, choice of flavours, clicking capsule, more interesting | |
| Paraje et al 34 | Cross-sectional | Last brand capsule versus non-capsule | More likely to choose flavour/taste in last purchase | |
.DCE, discrete choice experiment; e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes.