Source Credibility and E-Cigarette Attitudes: Implications for Tobacco Communication

As there are many conflicting sources of e-cigarette information, research is needed to determine the impact of these sources on e-cigarette attitudes to inform future communication campaigns. Source credibility is important in shaping attitudes toward other health topics; however, no study has exam...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health communication 2018-09, Vol.33 (9), p.1059-1067
Main Authors: Case, Kathleen R., Lazard, Allison J., Mackert, Michael S., Perry, Cheryl L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Attitudes
Campaigns
Cigarettes
Communication
Credibility
Electronic cigarettes
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
Female
Government agencies
Health
Health care
Health information
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Surveys
Humans
Information processing
Male
Medical personnel
Middle Aged
Perception
Pharmacists
Physicians
Smokers - statistics & numerical data
Smoking
Smoking - adverse effects
Tobacco
Tobacco Industry
Trust
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:As there are many conflicting sources of e-cigarette information, research is needed to determine the impact of these sources on e-cigarette attitudes to inform future communication campaigns. Source credibility is important in shaping attitudes toward other health topics; however, no study has examined its role in influencing e-cigarette attitudes. Data from the 2015 Health Information National Trends Survey-FDA (HINTS-FDA) were utilized to assess differences in trust in different sources by e-cigarette user status and to investigate the associations between trust in sources and e-cigarette attitudes (n = 3,738). Differences in trust in sources were examined using weighted linear regression. Associations between trust in sources of e-cigarette health effects and attitudes toward e-cigarettes were assessed using weighted logistic regression. Overall, e-cigarette ever users reported significantly lower trust in governmental agencies as compared to never users. Trust in e-cigarette companies was negatively associated with perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58, 1.00), while trust in doctors/pharmacists/healthcare providers was negatively associated with harm perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to conventional cigarettes (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.95). Trust in tobacco companies and trust in e-cigarette companies were negatively associated with absolute perceived harm of e-cigarettes (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51, 0.95; AOR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.79, respectively). Results from this study indicate that the associations between trust in sources of e-cigarette health effects and e-cigarette attitudes differ both by source and specific attitude assessed. Ultimately, future campaigns should incorporate messaging to discredit industry sources of information and utilize non-governmental sources to effectively influence e-cigarette attitudes.
ISSN:1041-0236
1532-7027
DOI:10.1080/10410236.2017.1331190