背景:加热烟草制品(HTPs),比如IQOS,被推销为创新的,时尚,有别于香烟和电子烟的减害产品。需要进行研究以更好地了解新引入HTPs的成年人如何相对于香烟和电子烟感知它们,以及这些看法对使用结果的影响。
方法:我们分析了来自1,914名从未使用过美国和以色列HTPs的成年人的2021年横断面调查数据,IQOS拥有独特历史和市场的两个国家。探索性因素分析检查了对HTPs的看法(与香烟和电子烟)跨越12种感知措施(例如,创新,时髦,有害,上瘾)。多变量线性回归检查了与自我报告可能性相关的这些因素:1)“在下一年尝试HTPs”(1=非-7=极度);和2)“向吸烟的朋友建议IQOS”(1=非-5=非常),控制人口统计和过去一个月香烟和电子烟的使用(10.1%双重使用,15.4%只香烟,只有5.7%的电子烟,68.8%)。
结果:确定了四个因素:HTPs的健康和效用(\'健康-效用\')以及设计和吸引力(\'设计-吸引力\')与香烟和vs.电子烟,分开。对HTP的更有利的看法与电子烟设计吸引力(B=0.30,95CI=0.18,0.41)与尝试HTPs的可能性更大相关。对HTP的更有利的看法与香烟设计吸引力(B=0.38,95CI=0.26,0.51)和健康效用(B=0.25,95CI=0.13,0.36),和HTPvs.电子烟设计吸引力(B=0.32,95CI=0.20,0.45)与向吸烟者建议HTPs的可能性更大相关。
结论:监测对HTPs的看法与鉴于这种观念在HTP使用中的作用及其对人口水平的影响,香烟和电子烟至关重要。
结论:这项研究检查了HTPs相对于香烟和电子烟的感知关系,关于成年人自我报告使用HTP或向吸烟的人建议HTP的可能性。对HTPs的设计和吸引力与电子烟的良好看法与尝试HTPs的可能性更大相关。对HTPs设计和吸引力的良好看法,以及健康和公用事业,与香烟和电子烟相比,向吸烟者建议使用HTPs的可能性更大。调查结果强调,需要对HTP营销和消费者观念进行持续监测,为监管工作提供信息,并估计HTP和其他烟草产品对人口水平的影响。
BACKGROUND: Heated tobacco products (HTPs), like IQOS, are marketed as innovative, stylish, harm-reduction products distinct from cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Research is needed to better understand how adults who are newly introduced to HTPs perceive them relative to cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and the impact of these perceptions on use outcomes.
METHODS: We analyzed 2021 cross-sectional survey data from 1,914 adults who never used HTPs from the United States and Israel, two countries where IQOS has unique histories and markets. Exploratory factor analysis examined perceptions of HTPs (vs. cigarettes and e-cigarettes) across 12 perception measures (e.g., innovative, trendy, harmful, addictive). Multivariable linear regression examined these factors in relation to self-reported likelihood to: 1) \"try HTPs in the next year\" (1=not-7=extremely); and 2) \"suggest IQOS to a friend who smokes cigarettes\" (1=not-5=very), controlling for demographics and past-month cigarette and e-cigarette use (10.1% dual use, 15.4% cigarette-only, 5.7% e-cigarette-only, 68.8% neither).
RESULTS: Four factors were identified: HTPs\' health and utility (\'health-utility\') and design and appeal (\'design-appeal\') vs. cigarettes and vs. e-cigarettes, separately. More favorable perceptions of HTP vs. e-cigarette design-appeal (B=0.30, 95%CI=0.18, 0.41) was associated with greater likelihood to try HTPs. More favorable perceptions of HTP vs. cigarette design-appeal (B=0.38, 95%CI=0.26, 0.51) and health-utility (B=0.25, 95%CI=0.13, 0.36), and HTP vs. e-cigarette design-appeal (B=0.32, 95%CI=0.20, 0.45) were associated with greater likelihood to suggest HTPs to smokers.
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring perceptions of HTPs vs. cigarettes and e-cigarettes is critical given the role of such perceptions in HTP use and their population-level impact.
CONCLUSIONS: This study examined the relationship of perceptions of HTPs relative to cigarettes and e-cigarettes, with regard to adults\' self-reported likelihood to use HTP or to suggest HTPs to those who smoke cigarettes. Favorable perceptions of HTPs\' design and appeal versus e-cigarettes correlated with greater likelihood to try HTPs. Favorable perceptions of HTPs\' design and appeal, as well as health and utility, versus cigarettes and e-cigarettes correlated with greater likelihood to suggest HTPs to those who smoke. Findings underscore the need for ongoing surveillance of HTP marketing and consumer perceptions to inform regulatory efforts and estimate the population-level impact of HTPs and other tobacco products.