MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288855528 · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntac184

Reasons for Using Roll-Your-Own Tobacco and Perceptions of Health-Promoting Pack Inserts: A Focus Group Study with Roll-Your-Own Tobacco Smokers in Scotland

2022· article· en· W4288855528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Crawford Moodie, Rachel O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueNicotine & Tobacco Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsFocus groupSmoking cessationPackaging and labelingPleasureTobacco productPerceptionMedicinePsychologyAdvertisingEnvironmental healthBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Use of roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco is increasing in most regions, but few qualitative studies have explored why RYO smokers use this product, and no study has considered their views of health-promoting pack inserts. METHODS: Eight focus groups were conducted with 18-35-year-old RYO smokers (n = 50) in Greater Glasgow (Scotland) in February-March 2020 to explore reasons for using RYO and perceptions of health-promoting inserts. Participants were shown four inserts adapted from those required in cigarette packs in Canada, with all encouraging quitting, and two RYO-specific inserts explaining that RYO is not less harmful than cigarettes. RESULTS: Lower price, better taste, the pleasure of rolling and ability to customize roll-ups, and the belief that RYO was less harmful than cigarettes were drivers for use. There were mixed perceptions of the extent to which inserts would capture attention if included in RYO packs. The positive messaging used on the Canadian inserts was considered motivational and inspirational, and contrasted with the on-pack warnings. The messaging on the RYO inserts, in comparison, was viewed unfavorably and generally dismissed. Participants, most of whom were not interested in quitting, did not feel that inserts would lead them to change their smoking behavior. However, some felt that the Canadian inserts could be helpful for those thinking about quitting and young people contemplating smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Inserts with positive messaging about quitting, rather than messaging explicating the harms of RYO, were preferred by RYO smokers. What, if any, RYO-specific messaging resonates with RYO smokers merits further attention. IMPLICATIONS: Aside from price, taste, and the pleasure associated with rolling and ability to individualize roll-ups, the erroneous belief that RYO is less harmful than cigarettes was a key reason for use. While inserts with positive messaging about quitting, as used on the Canadian inserts, were viewed as potentially helpful, inserts that challenged the idea that RYO was not less harmful than cigarettes were generally dismissed. Research is needed to understand what types of RYO-specific messaging could most effectively be used on inserts, or indeed in other media, to challenge the misperceptions that many RYO smokers hold.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNicotine & Tobacco ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207