ENDS Flavors: Difference between revisions
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
*Citation: Houtsmuller, E. J., Fant, R. V., Eissenberg, T. E., Henningfield, J. E., & Stitzer, M. L. (2002). Flavor improvement does not increase abuse liability of nicotine chewing gum. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 72(3), 559–568. doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00723-2 | *Citation: Houtsmuller, E. J., Fant, R. V., Eissenberg, T. E., Henningfield, J. E., & Stitzer, M. L. (2002). Flavor improvement does not increase abuse liability of nicotine chewing gum. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 72(3), 559–568. doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00723-2 | ||
= Multiple Points= | =Marketing/Advertising/Packaging= | ||
===2024: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10826084.2024.2374973 Associations Between Noticing E-Cigarette Advertising Features and E-Cigarette Appeal and Switching Interest Among Young Adult Dual Users]=== | |||
*Results: "Noticing fruit flavors (AOR = 1.67 and 1.28) and fruit images (AOR = 1.53 and 1.21) was positively associated with having any e-cigarette product appeal and switching interest. Noticing price promotions (AOR = 1.23) was positively associated with product appeal. In contrast, noticing nicotine warnings (AOR = 0.74 and 0.86), smoker-targeted claims (AOR = 0.78 and 0.89), and tobacco flavors (AOR = 0.92 and 0.90) was negatively associated with product appeal and switching interest." | |||
=Multiple Points= | |||
===2022: [https://media.thr.net/strapi/34d52398d9056adece15e8bda5172870.pdf?updated_at=2023-08-29T12:28:33.423Z THE CASE FOR FLAVOURS IN TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION, TO SAVE LIVES]=== | ===2022: [https://media.thr.net/strapi/34d52398d9056adece15e8bda5172870.pdf?updated_at=2023-08-29T12:28:33.423Z THE CASE FOR FLAVOURS IN TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION, TO SAVE LIVES]=== | ||