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

Michelle Jeong,Olivia A. Wackowski

doi:10.3390/ijerph17145151

Abstract

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.

Highlights

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].these measures are often asked in a general way (e.g., “how harmful do you think e-cigarettes are to health?”) [1,4].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]
Worded harm perception measures may result in somewhat higher e-cigarette harm ratings than general measures for some young adults
A recent review of tobacco risk perception studies found that few included conditional measures that specified a frequency of product use and a timeframe, and that limited research exists comparing the results of conditional and unconditional tobacco risk measures [1]

Summary

Introduction

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].these measures are often asked in a general way (e.g., “how harmful do you think e-cigarettes are to health?”) [1,4].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]. 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] These measures are often asked in a general way (e.g., “how harmful do you think e-cigarettes are to health?”) [1,4]. 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] Providing this type of conditional detail may help to improve the likelihood that respondents are interpreting the question and risk assessment in a similar way, and may aid in interpretation of responses [1]. A follow-up review recommended more research to examine the

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion