Effects of flavour and modified risk claims on nicotine pouch perceptions and use intentions among young adults who use inhalable nicotine and tobacco products: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Availability of flavours and potential modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims may influence young adults' (YAs') perceptions of and intentions to use nicotine pouches ('pouches').

METHODS

YAs aged 21-34 years (N=47, =24.5, =3.1) with past-month nicotine/tobacco use (10.6% cigarette-only, 51.1% e-cigarette-only, 38.3% dual use) and no intention to quit were randomised to self-administer four Zyn 3 mg nicotine pouches in a 4 (flavour; within-subjects: smooth, mint, menthol, citrus) × 2 (MRTP claim on packaging; between subjects: present or absent) mixed-factorial design. After self-administering each pouch, participants reported appeal, use intentions and perceived harm compared with cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Three mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) examined main and interactive effects of flavour and MRTP claim on appeal, use intentions and comparative harm perceptions.

RESULTS

Mint (=55.9, =26.4), menthol (=49.7, =26.8) and citrus (=46.6, =24.8) flavours were significantly more appealing than smooth (=37.6, =25.4; p<0.001). MRTP claim did not significantly affect product appeal (p=0.376). Use intentions were greater for mint (=2.6, =1.3) and menthol (=2.0, =1.1) flavours than smooth (=1.8, =1.0; p=0.002). Flavour did not affect comparative harm perceptions (p values>0.418). MRTP claims increased use intention (p=0.032) and perceptions of pouches as less harmful than cigarettes (p=0.011), but did not affect perceived harm relative to e-cigarettes (p=0.142). Flavour × MRTP claim interactions were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Flavoured (vs smooth) pouches were more appealing to YAs. MRTP claims reduced perceived harm of pouches compared with cigarettes; however, intentions to switch were low. To protect YAs' health, regulatory restrictions could target flavours and MRTP claims.