RESEARCH PAPER
Positive perceptions of electronic cigarettes relative to combustible cigarettes are associated with weaker support for endgame policies on combustible cigarettes: A population-based cross-sectional study in Hong Kong
Yongda S. Wu 1
,  
Man Ping Wang 1  
,  
Sai Yin Ho 2
,  
Antonio Kwong 3
,  
Vienna Lai 3
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
2
School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
3
Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health, Wan Chai, Hong Kong
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Man Ping Wang   

School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, 4/F, William M.W. Mong Block, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
Publish date: 2019-08-28
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019;17(August):61
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Positive perceptions of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to combustible cigarettes (CCs) may erode support for endgame policies on CCs through smoking renormalization (increasing public acceptance of smoking). We investigated the associations between perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to CCs and support for endgame policies on CCs in Hong Kong.

Methods:
Adult respondents (N=2004) were surveyed using landline random digit dialing in 2015. Perceived relative harm and relative addictiveness of e-cigarettes were combined as an overall perception of e-cigarettes relative to CCs with 5 levels and we analyzed individually ‘neutral/positive/mixed/unknown’ perceptions against the ‘negative’ perception. Five individual items with dichotomous responses assessed the support for endgame policies on CCs. Support for banning the sale/use of CCs (yes/no) was also assessed. Multivariable regressions yielded adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of supporting endgame policies (individual policy items, all 5 policy items, at least 1 policy item, banning the sale/use of CCs) in relation to perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to CCs, adjusting for age, education attainment, marital status, CC smoking status and ever e-cigarette use.

Results:
Support for individual endgame policy items (from 51.8% to 80.0%), banning the sale (63.8%) and use (67.5%) of CCs were generally high. Few respondents perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful (16.6%) or more addictive (9.3%) than CCs. Positive perceptions of e-cigarettes (24.0%) were associated with less support for ‘ban CC sales in 10 years if there is a product providing nicotine not made from tobacco’ (AOR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40–0.97), ‘ban CC use when it’s prevalence falls below 5%’ (AOR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.44–0.98) and ‘banning the sale of CCs’ (AOR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42–0.94).

Conclusions:
Positive perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to CCs were associated with less support for endgame policies on CCs in Hong Kong. Public health actions are needed to disseminate evidence-based knowledge of e-cigarettes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the respondents for their support and the Public Opinion Program, University of Hong Kong, for conducting the survey.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. M.P. Wang reports grants from Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health, during the conduct of the study. The rest of the authors have also completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health (https://www.smokefree.hk/tc/content/home.do) by funds to MPW. The funding organization had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
M.P.W. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: M.P.W., S.Y.H., Y.T.C., A.K., V.L. and T.H.L. Obtained funding: M.P.W., S.Y.H., Y.T.C., and T.H.L. Survey administration: M.P.W. and Y.T.C. Statistical analysis: Y.S.W. and M.P.W. Drafting of the manuscript: Y.S.W. and M.P.W. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and final approval of the manuscript by all the authors.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (38)
1.
King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, Dube SR. Trends in Awareness and Use of Electronic Cigarettes Among US Adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:219-227. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu191.
 
2.
Wang MP, Li W, Jiang N, et al. E-Cigarette Awareness, Perceptions and Use among Community-Recruited Smokers in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0141683. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141683.
 
3.
Filippidis FT, Laverty AA, Fernandez E, Mons U, Tigova O, Vardavas CI. Correlates of self-reported exposure to advertising of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes across 28 European Union member states. Tob Control. 2017;26:e130-e133. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053479.
 
4.
Kornfield R, Huang J, Vera L, Emery SL. Rapidly increasing promotional expenditures for e-cigarettes. Tob Control. 2015;24:110-111. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051580.
 
5.
Klein EG, Berman M, Hemmerich N, Carlson C, Htut S, Slater M. Online E-cigarette Marketing Claims: A Systematic Content and Legal Analysis. Tob Regul Sci. 2016;2:252-262. doi:10.18001/TRS.2.3.5.
 
6.
Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Stratton K, Kwan LY, Eaton DL, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2018. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24.... Accessed January 24, 2018.
 
7.
Huang SJ, Xu YM, Lau ATY. Electronic cigarette: A recent update of its toxic effects on humans. J Cell Physiol. 2018;233:4466-4478. doi:10.1002/jcp.26352.
 
8.
Goniewicz ML, Smith DM, Edwards KC, et al. Comparison of Nicotine and Toxicant Exposure in Users of Electronic Cigarettes and Combustible Cigarettes. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e185937–e185937. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5937.
 
9.
Goniewicz ML, Boykan R, Messina CR, Eliscu A, Tolentino J. High exposure to nicotine among adolescents who use Juul and other vape pod systems (‘pods’). Tob Control. 2018. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054565.
 
10.
Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Kehl L, Herzog TA. Receptivity to E-cigarette Marketing, Harm Perceptions, and E-cigarette Use. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39:121-131. doi:10.5993/ajhb.39.1.13.
 
11.
Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD. Smokers’ attitudes and support for e-cigarette policies and regulation in the USA. Tob Control. 2015;24:543-546. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051953.
 
12.
Brose LS, Partos TR, Hitchman SC, McNeill A. Support for e-cigarette policies: a survey of smokers and ex-smokers in Great Britain. Tob Control. 2017;26:e7-e15. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052987.
 
13.
Wilson H, Thomson G. ‘Balancing acts’: The politics and processes of smokefree area policymaking in a small state. Health Policy. 2011;101:79-86. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.08.017.
 
14.
Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office. Tobacco Control Legislation - Meaning and Regulation on Tobacco Advertisement. https://www.taco.gov.hk/t/engl.... Accessed November 2, 2017.
 
15.
Jiang N, Chen J, Wang MP, et al. Electronic cigarette awareness and use among adults in Hong Kong. Addict Behav. 2016;52:34-38. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.08.008.
 
16.
Cheung YTD, Wang MP, Ho SY, et al. Public Support for Electronic Cigarette Regulation in Hong Kong: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:709. doi:10.3390/ijerph14070709.
 
17.
Fairchild AL, Bayer R, Colgrove J. The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes and the tobacco “endgame.” N Engl J Med. 2014;370:293-295. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1313940.
 
18.
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: Report by WHO. FCTC/COP/6/10 Rev.1. Moscow: WHO; 2014. http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PD.... Accessed January 24, 2018.
 
19.
Ashley MJ. What the public thinks about the tobacco industry and its products. Tob Control. 2003;12:396-400. doi:10.1136/tc.12.4.396.
 
20.
Li Q, Hyland A, O’Connor R, et al. Support for smoke-free policies among smokers and non-smokers in six cities in China: ITC China Survey. Tob Control. 2010;19:i40-i46. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.029850.
 
21.
Dutra LM, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and National Adolescent Cigarette Use: 2004-2014. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20162450. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2450.
 
22.
Office of the Surgeon General. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults : a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2016. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov.... Accessed January 31, 2018.
 
23.
Soneji S, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wills TA, et al. Association Between Initial Use of e-Cigarettes and Subsequent Cigarette Smoking Among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:788-797. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488.
 
24.
Malone RE. Tobacco endgames: what they are and are not, issues for tobacco control strategic planning and a possible US scenario. Tob Control. 2013;22:i42-i44. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050820.
 
25.
McDaniel PA, Smith EA, Malone RE. The tobacco endgame: a qualitative review and synthesis. Tob Control. 2016;25:594-604. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052356.
 
26.
Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Thematic Household Survey Report No. 59. Hong Kong; 2016. https://www.statistics.gov.hk/.... Accessed July 19, 2016.
 
27.
Wang MP, Wang X, Lam TH, Viswanath K, Chan SS. The tobacco endgame in Hong Kong: public support for a total ban on tobacco sales. Tob Control. 2015;24:162-167. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051092.
 
28.
Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health. Marking the achievements in tobacco control and Taking a leap towards a tobacco endgame in Hong Kong. http://www.smokefree.hk/en/con.... Published December 1, 2017. Accessed June 11, 2018.
 
29.
Ruokolainen O, Ollila H, Patja K, Borodulin K, Laatikainen T, Korhonen T. Social climate on tobacco control in an advanced tobacco control country: A population-based study in Finland. Nord Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018;35:152-164. doi:10.1177/1455072518767750.
 
30.
Broms U, Silventoinen K, Lahelma E, Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J. Smoking cessation by socioeconomic status and marital status: The contribution of smoking behavior and family background. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6:447-455. doi:10.1080/14622200410001696637.
 
31.
Blake KD, Viswanath K, Blendon RJ, Vallone D. The role of tobacco-specific media exposure, knowledge, and smoking status on selected attitudes toward tobacco control. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12:117-126. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp184.
 
32.
Majeed BA, Weaver SR, Gregory KR, et al. Changing Perceptions of Harm of E-Cigarettes Among U.S. Adults, 2012–2015. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52:331-338. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.039.
 
33.
Yao T, Jiang N, Grana R, Ling PM, Glantz SA. A content analysis of electronic cigarette manufacturer websites in China. Tob Control. 2016;25:188-194. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051840.
 
34.
Macy JT, Chassin L, Presson CC. The Association Between Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Smoking and Support for Tobacco Control Measures. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:291-296. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts117.
 
35.
Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact. Tob Control. 2002;11:i18-i31. doi:10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i18.
 
36.
Tomar SL. Epidemiologic Perspectives on Smokeless Tobacco Marketing and Population Harm. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:S387-S397. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.009.
 
37.
Laverty AA, Filippidis FT, Fernandez E, Vardavas CI. E-cigarette use and support for banning e-cigarette use in public places in the European Union. Prev Med. 2017;105:10-14. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.08.007.
 
38.
Unger JB, Barker D, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Soto DW, Sussman S. Support for electronic cigarette regulations among California voters. Tob Control. 2016. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052918.
 
eISSN:1617-9625