How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Morgan, Jennifer C.; Byron, Michael; Baig, Sabeeh A; Stepanov, Irina; Brewer, Noel T.

doi:10.1007/s10865-017-9823-5

Cited by 67 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results suggest that many smokers in the clearly combustion segment retain a strong implicit belief that nicotine is very harmful and that thinking about nicotine evokes negative affective associations. These results are broadly consistent with both recent US findings and findings from our earlier qualitative research .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Understandings of the component causes of harm from cigarette smoking in Australia

King

Borland

Yong

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and Aims To investigate relationships between smoking‐related behaviours and knowledge of the disease risks of smoking and the causes of smoking harms, using a four‐way division of ‘component causes’: nicotine, other substances found in unburned tobacco, combustion products of tobacco and additives. Design and Methods The data were collected using an on‐line survey in Australia with 1047 participants in three groups; young non‐smokers (18 to 25), young smokers (18 to 25) and older smokers (26 and above). Results Most participants agreed that cancer and heart disease are major risks of smoking but only a quarter accurately quantified the mortality risk of lifetime daily smoking. Very few (two of 1047) correctly estimated the relative contributions of all four component causes. Post‐hoc analyses reinterpreting responses as expressions of relative concern about combustion products and nicotine showed that 29% of participants rated combustion products above nicotine. We delineated six relative concern segments, most of which had distinctive patterns of beliefs and actions. However, higher levels of concern about combustion products were only weakly positively associated with harm reducing beliefs and actions. Discussion and Conclusions Most smokers do not appear to understand the risks of smoking and their causes well enough to be able to think systematically about the courses of action open to them to reduce their health risk. To facilitate informed decision‐making, tobacco control communicators may need to better balance the dual aims of creating fear/negative affect about smoking and imparting knowledge about the health harms and their mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Understandings of the component causes of harm from cigarette smoking in Australia

King

Borland

Yong

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding confirms and extends the previous findings of Hall et al and is consistent with other research on constituents 8 15. Health communication campaigns may still be able to productively focus on less familiar constituents; however, more research is needed on how to best address low understanding of these unfamiliar cigarette smoke constituents.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Our recent review of the literature found low awareness and knowledge about cigarette smoke constituents other than nicotine and tar 8–14. Additionally, our review also found that people are interested in learning more about these constituents 8 15 16. However, the literature has large gaps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Tobacco Control Act requires public disclosure of information about toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. To inform these efforts, we studied public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents. Methods We conducted phone surveys with national probability samples of adolescents (n=1125) and adults (n=5014) and an internet survey with a convenience sample of adults (n=4137), all in the USA. We assessed understanding of cigarette smoke constituents in general and of 24 specific constituents. Results Respondents commonly and incorrectly believed that harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke mostly originate in additives introduced by cigarette manufacturers (43–72%). Almost all participants had heard that nicotine is in cigarette smoke, and many had also heard about carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and formaldehyde. Less than one-quarter had heard of most other listed constituents being in cigarette smoke. Constituents most likely to discourage respondents from wanting to smoke were ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, lead and uranium. Respondents more often reported being discouraged by constituents that they had heard are in cigarette smoke (all p<0.05). Constituents with names that started with a number or ended in ‘ene’ or ‘ine’ were less likely to discourage people from wanting to smoke (all p<0.05). Discussion Many people were unaware that burning the cigarette is the primary source of toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. Constituents that may most discourage cigarette smoking have familiar names, like arsenic and formaldehyde and do not start with a number or end in ene/ine. Our findings may help campaign designers develop constituent messages that discourage smoking.

show abstract

“…3 When asked what chemicals are in cigarettes, most people can name only nicotine, carbon monoxide, and “tar.” 4–9 The public has an interest in knowing more about the chemicals in cigarette smoke, 10–12 and some studies suggest that learning about the chemicals may increase quit intentions. 3 Some experts argue the public has a fundamental right to know what they are consuming when they smoke, just as they currently know what ingredients are in food. 13–15 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Formats for Communicating Risks from Cigarette Smoke Chemicals

Byron¹,

Lazard²,

Peters³

et al. 2018

tobacco reg sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The US government requires the public display of information about toxic chemicals in cigarettes and smoke by brand in a way that is understandable and not misleading. We sought to identify risk communication formats that meet these goals. Methods We conducted 3 online experiments with US adult convenience samples (total N = 1866). Participants viewed a webpage displaying information about chemicals in the smoke of a cigarette brand. Experiment 1 varied the chemicals listed and format for their health effects. Experiments 2 and 3 varied the format of chemical quantities and presence/absence of a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were understandable (increasing knowledge) and not misleading (not reinforcing misperceptions). Results Information about chemicals and health effects increased knowledge of these topics by ~30% (p < .001) compared to no information. Quantity format and use of a risk indicator generally did not affect knowledge. The proportion of participants misled ranged from 0% to 92%, depending on measure. Findings indicated 52% would use a website to search for safer cigarettes. Risk communication formats did little to reduce being misled. Conclusions Some risk communication formats successfully increased knowledge of chemicals and health effects. However, the formats did little to reduce the proportion of people misled.

show abstract

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Cited by 67 publications

References 62 publications

Understandings of the component causes of harm from cigarette smoking in Australia

Understandings of the component causes of harm from cigarette smoking in Australia

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

Effective Formats for Communicating Risks from Cigarette Smoke Chemicals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About