The Appeal of Smokeless Tobacco Products Among Young Canadian Smokers: The Impact of Pictorial Health Warnings and Relative Risk Messages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the health risks from smokeless tobacco (ST) are lower than cigarettes, it remains unclear how smokers might use ST products, including as a substitute, a cessation aid, or concurrently with cigarette use, if at all. Additionally, there is little evidence examining the impact of health warning labels (HWL) on ST use and perceptions. METHODS: The current study investigated perceptions of ST products with and without HWL and a relative health risk (RHR) message. The study consisted of a full-factorial "between-subjects" experiment in which 3 HWL and a RHR message were systematically varied. Canadian smokers aged 18-30 years (N = 611) completed an online survey where they viewed four brands of ST packages altered according to the experimental conditions. RESULTS: Approximately half of the smokers indicated that they were willing to try ST as a substitute and to help quit smoking. More than one quarter (28%) of smokers were unaware that using ST is less harmful than smoking. Pictorial HWL increased false beliefs about the RHR of ST and decreased smokers' willingness to try ST, whereas text warnings did not. Adding a RHR message communicating the lower risk of ST compared with cigarettes increased willingness to try ST when added to text HWL but decreased willingness to try ST even further when added to pictorial HWL. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate relatively high levels of appeal for ST among young adult Canadian cigarette smokers. Pictorial HWL reduced the appeal of ST products and increased perceived risks, including the false belief that ST is equally harmful as cigarettes. Further research could consider evaluating designs of HWL on ST products that better balance absolute and RHR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".