Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2026
Comparing the Effects of Electronic Cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke in a Novel In Vivo Exposure System
Published on: May 24, 2017
'The lesser devil you don't know': a qualitative study of smokers' responses to messages communicating comparative
Daniel Owusu1, Rachel Lawley1, Bo Yang1
1School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
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.
More Related Videos
06:39Electroencephalographic, Heart Rate, and Galvanic Skin Response Assessment for an Advertising Perception Study: Application to Antismoking Public Service Announcements
Published on: August 28, 2017
09:30A Microcontroller Operated Device for the Generation of Liquid Extracts from Conventional Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Aerosol
Published on: January 18, 2018
Related Concept Videos
01:11Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One example of...
01:23Drugs Acting on Autonomic Ganglia: Stimulants
Ganglionic stimulants activate NM nicotinic receptors in autonomic ganglia, falling into two categories: nicotine mimetics [e.g., lobeline, dimethylpiperazine, tetramethylammonium] and muscarinic receptor agonists [e.g., muscarine, methacholine]. The first category's action is rapid and blocked by nicotinic receptor antagonists, while the second category's action is delayed and blocked by atropine-like agents. Nicotine, an alkaloid, affects the heart rate by stimulating sympathetic or...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:28Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
01:12Relative Risk
01:29Stimulants
Cocaine can be administered via snorting, injection, or smoking. It primarily functions by blocking the reuptake of dopamine, resulting in a euphoric high characterized by an intense sensation of happiness and...