Australian smokers' experiences and perceptions of recessed and firm filter cigarettes.
advertising and promotion
packaging and labelling
prevention
public policy
tobacco industry
Journal
Tobacco control
ISSN: 1468-3318
Titre abrégé: Tob Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9209612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
26
02
2020
revised:
21
07
2020
accepted:
24
07
2020
pubmed:
30
10
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
29
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While cigarette filter modifications have long been used to increase product appeal and assuage health concerns, tighter marketing restrictions, including plain packaging, have further spurred the growth of filter variants. We explored and assessed experiences and perceptions of smokers who had tried and/or currently use recessed filter cigarettes (RFCs) and firm filter cigarettes (FFCs). In November 2018, we undertook eight exploratory focus groups of Australian adult factory-made cigarette smokers (total n=56). In July 2019, we surveyed 999 smokers aged 18-69 years to quantify ever and current use of these products and associated beliefs and sensory experiences. Focus group and survey findings were consistent. Among 988 smokers who had at least tried factory-made cigarettes, 28.9% had tried FFCs and 11.1% currently smoked these, while 36.4% had tried RFCs and 7.5% currently smoked these. Smokers in both studies believed these filters may reduce harm and that FFCs increase appeal. In the survey, 58.9% of RFC triers agreed these hide the filter's brown stain and 48.9% agreed that RFCs keep harmful substances away from the mouth. Similarly, 58.4% of FFC triers agreed these trap more harmful substances than standard filters. Relative to standard filter cigarettes, more smokers experienced FFCs and RFCs as feeling clean (p=0.03) and more current FFC users experienced these as feeling smooth (p=0.01). RFCs and FFCs undermine plain packaging legislation, which aims to reduce appeal and minimise misperceptions about the relative harms of different tobacco products. Like other filter modifications, these filter variants should be disallowed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
While cigarette filter modifications have long been used to increase product appeal and assuage health concerns, tighter marketing restrictions, including plain packaging, have further spurred the growth of filter variants. We explored and assessed experiences and perceptions of smokers who had tried and/or currently use recessed filter cigarettes (RFCs) and firm filter cigarettes (FFCs).
METHOD
In November 2018, we undertook eight exploratory focus groups of Australian adult factory-made cigarette smokers (total n=56). In July 2019, we surveyed 999 smokers aged 18-69 years to quantify ever and current use of these products and associated beliefs and sensory experiences.
RESULTS
Focus group and survey findings were consistent. Among 988 smokers who had at least tried factory-made cigarettes, 28.9% had tried FFCs and 11.1% currently smoked these, while 36.4% had tried RFCs and 7.5% currently smoked these. Smokers in both studies believed these filters may reduce harm and that FFCs increase appeal. In the survey, 58.9% of RFC triers agreed these hide the filter's brown stain and 48.9% agreed that RFCs keep harmful substances away from the mouth. Similarly, 58.4% of FFC triers agreed these trap more harmful substances than standard filters. Relative to standard filter cigarettes, more smokers experienced FFCs and RFCs as feeling clean (p=0.03) and more current FFC users experienced these as feeling smooth (p=0.01).
CONCLUSION
RFCs and FFCs undermine plain packaging legislation, which aims to reduce appeal and minimise misperceptions about the relative harms of different tobacco products. Like other filter modifications, these filter variants should be disallowed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33115960
pii: tobaccocontrol-2020-055725
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055725
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
660-667Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: Outside the submitted work, NB reports personal fees from Pfizer and Achieve Life Sciences as a consultant, and from Tobacco litigation as an expert witness against tobacco companies. MAW, KD, EB, AV, MS and SJD report that they are employed by a non-profit organisation that conducts public health interventions, research and advocacy aimed at reducing the harms of tobacco in the community, especially those pertaining to cancer. JH, JT, DH and JMS have nothing to disclose.