Impact of a regional educational advertising campaign on harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, prevalence of e-cigarette use, and quit attempts among smokers

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking is associated with substantial risk of premature morbidity and mortality (1) and is the leading preventable cause of cancer, causing around 7 in 10 lung cancer cases in the UK (2). This excess risk is primarily driven by the inhalation of toxins contained within the smoke (3) and could be mitigated by quitting or switching to nicotine products that do not contain tobacco or require combustion (4). Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are handheld electronic devices that allow the user to inhale nicotine in a vapour, without tobacco or combustion, thereby reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms (5). However, public perceptions of e-cigarettes are inaccurate and have worsened over recent years even among smokers (5,6), which may discourage use. Increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes and tobacco smoking is important to enable smokers to make informed decisions about product use. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of an advertising campaign designed to address misperceptions around e-cigarette harms relative to tobacco smoking.

Following a period of rapid growth in the prevalence of e-cigarette use (‘vaping’) from 2011 to 2014, e-cigarettes are now used by around 2.6 million people in England (20% of smokers) and are the most common aid to smoking cessation, used in over one third of quit attempts (7). Evidence from several randomised controlled trials indicates that using e-cigarettes in a quit attempt increases the chances of successful cessation (8,9). On a population level, the rise in use of e-cigarettes in England and the United States has been associated with increases in the overall success rate of quit attempts in the population (10,11), contributing to continued declines in smoking prevalence (12). While the prevalence of e-cigarette use in England has remained fairly stable since late 2013, use among long-term ex-smokers has continued to rise and some data suggest that there are now more ex-smokers than smokers using e-cigarettes (14).

Although the long-term effects of using e-cigarettes are unclear as they are a relatively new product, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that they are much less harmful than smoking tobacco (5,15). Toxicology testing has shown that while e-cigarettes can be used to obtain similar levels of nicotine to combustible tobacco, switching to e-cigarettes can significantly reduce levels of measured carcinogens and toxins relative to smoking, with differences observed within a matter of weeks (16–18). Moreover, lower levels of carcinogens and toxins have been observed among long-term e-cigarette users (≥6 months) compared with current cigarette smokers (15).

However, surveys have indicated that public perceptions of the relative harms of using e-cigarettes compared with smoking tobacco are generally inaccurate. In 2017, less than half (44%) of adults in Great Britain believed that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking, the lowest percentage since monitoring started in 2013 (5,6). Just 13% correctly identified e-cigarettes as being a lot less harmful than smoking (5,6). The majority of adults perceived e-cigarettes to be equally harmful (23%), more harmful (3%), or were unsure about the relative risk (29%), with the percentage who believed they were more harmful the highest on record (5,6). Inaccurate perceptions of harm may undermine the potential public health benefits of e-cigarettes as an option for smoking cessation. If smokers are unaware that e-cigarettes offer a less harmful alternative, they may be less likely to try using e-cigarettes to quit. Thus, there is a need for effective interventions to increase the accuracy of perceptions of the relative harm associated with e-cigarettes, particularly among smokers from groups with high prevalence of smoking or low likelihood of quitting.

In addition to nationwide efforts to correct these misperceptions, Cancer Research UK, the world’s largest cancer charity, developed an advertising campaign that aimed to increase awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with tobacco. The campaign was targeted at smokers aged 25-55 years, with a focus on those who wanted to stop and had never tried e-cigarettes. Lower socio-economic groups were also targeted because people with greater disadvantage are more likely to smoke and less likely to use e-cigarettes than those who are more advantaged (19) (although recent data suggest this disparity is narrowing (20)). The campaign was piloted in Greater Manchester over a four-week period in early 2018, with surveys conducted before and after the campaign period to evaluate changes in perceptions and use of e-cigarettes and quit attempts. For evaluation purposes, surveys were also conducted in the designated control regions Yorkshire & Humber and the North East. These were chosen as comparison regions because they share a similar demographic profile to Greater Manchester in terms of smoking prevalence, deprivation, and age.

This study used data from these surveys to evaluate the extent to which the campaign was effective in:

1. Reaching members of the target group, C2DE smokers aged 25-55 years,

2. Increasing awareness of the harms of e-cigarettes relative to smoking tobacco,

3. Improving smokers’ attitudes to using e-cigarettes,

4. Promoting actual use of e-cigarettes by smokers, and

5. Increasing motivation and attempts to quit among smokers.

METHODS

RESULTS

Socio-demographic characteristics of the samples in each region pre- and post-campaign are shown in Table 1. Over a third (36.7%, 95% CI 33.0% – 40.6%) of participants in the post-campaign Manchester sample recognised at least one of the campaign materials. There was no significant difference in recognition between target participants (C2DE smokers aged 25-55 years) and others (38.3% vs. 35.8%, OR= 1.17, 95% CI 0.83 – 1.65). The aspect of the campaign with the largest reach was the bus stop poster with 28.7% of participants reporting recognising it.

Table 2 shows changes in outcomes over time by region. In the general population, interactions between time and region were non-significant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre- to post-campaign in the campaign region (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 – 0.98, p = .04). In current smokers, the only significant time by region interaction was for motivation to quit, which increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.25 – 7.16, p = .01).

Bayes factors were calculated for non-significant results to determine whether the data were insensitive or provided evidence for no effect. All Bayes factors were between a third and three, suggesting that there was insufficient evidence to determine the impact of the campaign across these outcomes. Sensitivity analyses that used both higher and lower expected effect sizes provided the same conclusion for all but one of the interactions (see supplementary material), suggesting that there was insufficient evidence to reject or accept either the null or alternative hypotheses.

DISCUSSION

An awareness campaign to improve harm perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to smoking, developed by Cancer Research UK, was recognised by over a third of participants in a post-campaign evaluation. Recognition was not significantly higher in the target group of low socio-economic status (C2DE) smokers aged 25-55 years. When compared with smokers from a control region, smokers who were exposed to the campaign reported a more positive change in motivation to quit from before to after the campaign was run. However, among all participants, perceptions of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid improved more in the control than campaign region. There was insufficient evidence to determine the impact of the campaign on other outcomes, including the campaign’s primary objective: harm perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to smoking.

Past mass media campaigns have successfully altered the public’s attitudes towards smoking, improved motivation to quit smoking, and reduced smoking prevalence (30). This campaign also aimed to promote quitting through the most common cessation aid in the UK: e-cigarettes (7). Given that the campaign only ran for one month, reach was impressive with more than one in three of those surveyed recognising at least one of the advertisements. This is comparable to the level of recognition recorded from other smoking cessation campaigns than ran for a much longer duration (31,32). The similarly high level of recognition found among C2DE smokers aged 25-55 years and other populations suggests that, while the campaign was effective at reaching this target group, it was similarly successful at reaching other groups.

Motivation to quit smoking tends to be high at the start of a new year and subsequently drops off throughout January (33). We found that those in the campaign region were insulated from this drop. The campaign’s promotion of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, which are widely available and often quicker to access than other cessation aids such as pharmacotherapy on prescription, may have contributed to this. Motivation to quit is a strong predictor of future quit attempts (34). Therefore, if the difference in motivation between regions was caused by the campaign, there is a rationale to expand it to other regions. However, other unmeasured influences may also have contributed towards these different trends across regions.

Perceptions of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids increased in both regions from pre-to post-campaign, but showed a significantly greater increase in the control region. At baseline, perceptions of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids were much higher in the campaign region. Therefore, the smaller increase in this region may represent a ceiling effect, where the high initial level of this variable meant that it was unresponsive to interventions aimed to raise it. Conversely, low baseline effectiveness perceptions in the control region meant other campaigns aimed at correcting these misperceptions — such as one run by Public Health England (35) over the same time period — would likely have had a greater impact, resulting in similar levels of perceptions at follow-up.

Bayes factors indicated data were insensitive to detect significant associations for most outcomes. Effects of mass media advertising campaigns tend to be small, especially if they are run for a short period of time (29). Therefore, the lack of evidence to determine whether changes in the other outcomes differed between regions was likely due to a lack of statistical power. We may have been able to detect the campaign’s impact on these outcomes if it ran for a longer time period, or if the sample size was larger.

A strength of this study was that we were able to adjust for trends in outcomes over time by using a comparison region containing populations who were not exposed to the campaign. A pre-post analysis solely in the campaign region would have been unable to determine what effects were caused by seasonal changes, which are especially variable from December to February (33). Nonetheless, the study design used had several limitations. Most significantly, we had to assume that the trends in outcomes would be identical across groups were it not for the influence of the advertising campaign. For this to be true, any unmeasured variables that influence outcomes must either be constant over time or equal across groups, which is unlikely to be the case. For instance, over the campaign period, there were other interventions in place (in addition to the Cancer Research UK campaign) that aimed to alter public perceptions of e-cigarettes (35). These may have had a greater impact on outcomes in the control region due to lower baseline perceptions. Moreover, there is regular news coverage both supporting and opposing e-cigarette use, which could also have differentially affected trends across regions. To better account for these unobserved variables, a longer time-series analysis or cluster randomised-controlled trial would be required. Another limitation is that all data were self-reported, which introduces scope for error and bias. However, due to the low demand characteristics in the study, this is unlikely to significantly influence our results. Issues also arise from the sample used. Firstly, unlike a true pre-post study, different individuals were recruited in baseline and follow-up samples. This introduces bias as these samples may vary on important characteristics. Secondly, sample size was insufficient to detect even relatively large changes in outcomes. Future research, with a larger sample and more robust design, would be useful to determine whether similar advertising campaigns can impact harm perceptions towards e-cigarettes when compared to smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

A regional educational advertising campaign in England was associated with increased motivation to quit among smokers exposed to the campaign, when compared with those in an unexposed region. It was also associated with a smaller increase in perceptions of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid among the general population, which may be due to different baseline perceptions across regions. A Bayesian analysis showed that the impact of the campaign on the other outcomes was inconclusive, which may indicate that the campaign needed to run across a longer period to cause a detectable effect.

Competing Interests

LS has received honoraria for talks, an unrestricted research grant and travel expenses to attend meetings and workshops from Pfizer, and has acted as paid reviewer for grant awarding bodies and as a paid consultant for health care companies. All authors declare no financial links with tobacco companies or e-cigarette manufacturers or their representatives.

Funding

The educational advertising campaign and data collection were funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK). SJ’s salary is funded by CRUK (C1417/A22962) and the ESRC (ES/R005990/1). CI is employed by CRUK. LB is seconded part time to CRUK in an advisory role and her employer (the University of Edinburgh) receive funding from CRUK for a portion of her time. HTB’s salary is funded by an unrestricted grant provided by Pfizer under the GRAND scheme.