Search

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (∼ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers., Methods: Data were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated., Results: In adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy., Conclusions: Educational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D.L.A. has received funds for work done for the World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative, as a consultant for Pfizer and McKing Consulting, Inc. (Atlanta, GA, USA), as an employee of Cherokee National Operational Systems, and as a Special Government Employee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts., Methods: In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy., Results: While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire., Conclusions: Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions., Implications: This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Public health officials have classified smoking as a risk factor for COVID-19 disease severity. Smokers generally have less trust in health experts than do nonsmokers, leading to reduced risk perceptions. This study addresses smokers' trust in information sources about COVID-19 and how trust is associated with perceived COVID-19 susceptibility and severity among smokers., Methods and Findings: A nationally representative sample of 1,223 current smokers were surveyed between October and November 2020, indicating their level of trust in COVID-19 information sources, and their perceptions of risk from COVID-19. Multiple differences in trustworthiness emerged; smokers trusted their personal doctor for information about COVID-19 more than other information sources, while news media were generally distrusted. In addition, the FDA was trusted less than the NIH and CDC. Several "trust gaps" were observed, indicating disparities in levels of trust associated with gender, ethnicity, education, and political orientation, which had the strongest association with trust of all factors. Political orientation was also a significant predictor of COVID-19 risk perceptions, but there was no independent effect of political orientation when accounting for trust, which was predictive of all risk perception outcomes., Conclusions: Trusted sources, such as personal doctors, may most effectively convey COVID-19 information across political orientations and sociodemographic groups. News media may be ineffective at informing smokers due to their low credibility. The results suggest that trust may explain the apparent effect of political orientation on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Implications for researchers, communication professionals, and policy makers are discussed., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.