A review of risk perception measurement in tobacco control research

Kaufman, Annette; Persoskie, Alexander; Twesten, Jenny; Bromberg, Julie E.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054005

Cited by 46 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 121 publications

(128 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tobacco and nicotine product risk and harm perceptions have been associated with tobacco use, and as such, tobacco risk measures are important and frequently included in research studies [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. However, these measures are often asked in a general way (e.g., “how harmful do you think e-cigarettes are to health?”) [ 1 , 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent reports and reviews of risk perception studies have recommended the use of more specific wording when measuring tobacco risk and harm perceptions [ 1 , 4 , 5 ]. This includes, for example, the measurement of harm/risk beliefs about specific health effects of a given product, rather than a single general harm or risk perception question [ 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Other recommendations include specifying for whom the risk is being evaluated (i.e., self or others), providing a conditional scenario of use (e.g., specifying the product used and level of exposure or frequency of product use), and providing a timeframe for consideration [ 1 , 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a General and Conditional Measure of E-Cigarette Harm Perceptions

Wackowski

Jeong

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures of tobacco product harm perceptions are important in research, given their association with tobacco use. Despite recommendations to use more specific harm and risk perception measures, limited research exists comparing different wordings. We present exploratory survey data comparing young adults’ (ages 18–29) responses to a general e-cigarette harm perception measure (“How harmful, if at all, do you think vaping/using an e-cigarette is to a user’s health?”) with a more specific conditional measure, which personalized the behavior/harm (“imagine you vaped,” “your health”) and presented a specific use condition (exclusive daily vaping) and timeframe (10 years). Data were collected in January 2019 (n = 1006). Measures were highly correlated (r = 0.76, Cronbach’s α = 0.86), and most (65%) provided consistent responses, although more participants rated e-cigarettes as very or extremely harmful using the conditional (51.6%) versus the general (43.9%) harm measure. However, significant differences in harm ratings were not observed among young adults who currently vaped. Correlations between each harm perception measure and measures of e-cigarette use intentions were similar. More specifically worded harm perception measures may result in somewhat higher e-cigarette harm ratings than general measures for some young adults. Additional research on best practices for measuring e-cigarette and other tobacco harm perceptions is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of a General and Conditional Measure of E-Cigarette Harm Perceptions

Wackowski

Jeong

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourth, this study did not assess comparative harm and only compared absolute harm among products. Future studies examining this association should ask participants about comparative harm and should consider more robust measures of harm and risk perception, including nuances, such as harm associated with frequency of use and harm to self versus others [ 43 ]. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the correlational nature of the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm Perceptions of the JUUL E-Cigarette in a Sample of Ever Users

Stevens

Hébert

Tackett

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Monitoring trends and perceptions of new nicotine salt-based electronic cigarettes (ECs), like JUUL, is important to identify associations with product experimentation and use. Understanding harm perceptions of these new devices will inform prevention and intervention efforts. The current study assesses perceptions of the absolute harmfulness of JUUL use in addition to comparing it to other tobacco products. Methods: Participants (N = 839, 52% male) reporting ever use of JUUL were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk from January to March 2018. Respondents completed questionnaire items assessing demographics, co-use of non-JUUL products, JUUL use status (i.e., daily users (10.8%), non-daily users (29.4%), and triers (59.9%)), and JUUL and other tobacco products absolute harm perceptions. Results: Overall, participants rated JUUL as significantly less harmful than all other tobacco products (p < 0.001), except other ECs. Daily JUUL users rated JUUL as less harmful compared to non-daily JUUL users and JUUL triers (p < 0.05). JUUL was rated as more harmful by women compared to men (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Increased frequency of JUUL use was associated with decreased harm perceptions. JUUL was associated with reduced perceptions of absolute harm compared to most other tobacco products, except other ECs. Public health practitioners should develop public health interventions that increase harm perceptions of ECs.

show abstract

“…This special issue of Tobacco Control includes five papers that summarise the process and outcomes of each of the WGs: (1) Host: Social/Cognitive,9 (2) Host: Biobehavioral,10 (3) Agent,11 (4) Vector12 and (5) Environment 13. The remaining two papers provide the results of NIH programme staff investigations of issues raised during the PhenX TRR deliberations: an analysis of the HAVE measurement domains in funded grant applications investigating e-cigarettes,14 and a review of the literature in measures of product-specific risk perceptions, a major gap identified during the TRR PhenX process 15…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The PhenX Toolkit: measures for tobacco regulatory research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of standard measures and common data elements in the conduct of tobacco regulatory research (TRR) will improve data comparability and facilitate cross-study analyses and replication of findings to inform the regulatory decisions and actions of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). This overview paper introduces the PhenX (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures) initiative to identify common measures and common data elements for use in TRR which have been disseminated in the PhenX Toolkit (https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/). It describes the work of the scientific panel that provided guidance to the project and the TRR Core Collection of measures recommended for use by investigators conducting human-subject tobacco regulatory or related tobacco control research. The use of PhenX TRR measures will promote collaborative research and facilitate data interoperability and validation of outcome assessments to inform the FDA CTP’s regulatory activities.

show abstract

A review of risk perception measurement in tobacco control research

Cited by 46 publications

References 121 publications

Comparison of a General and Conditional Measure of E-Cigarette Harm Perceptions

Comparison of a General and Conditional Measure of E-Cigarette Harm Perceptions

Harm Perceptions of the JUUL E-Cigarette in a Sample of Ever Users

The PhenX Toolkit: measures for tobacco regulatory research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About