The Effect of Product Characteristics on Perceptions of E-cigarettes among Canadians Christine Czoli, PhD Student May 28, 2014
The Effect of Product Characteristics on Perceptions of E-cigarettes among Canadians Christine Czoli, PhD Student May 28, 2014.
Jan 12, 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Effect of Product Characteristics on Perceptions of E-cigarettes among Canadians
Christine Czoli, PhD Student
May 28, 2014
Background
Source: Alderman L. (2013). E-Cigarettes are in vogue and at a crossroads. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/e-cigarettes-are-in-vogue-and-at-a-crossroads.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Background• Debate: public health benefit or harm?• Limited research evidence
Background• E-cigarette regulatory frameworks• Targets for regulation?
Research Objective1. To examine the relative importance of flavour, nicotine
content, health warnings, and price among Canadians’:a) Perceptions of product tasteb) Perceptions of product harmc) Perceptions of product efficacy in smoking
cessation
2. To examine the extent to which outcomes a-d are moderated by smoking status, gender, and age.
MethodsStudy Design & Protocol
• Online survey + discrete choice experiment• November 2013
• 1,188 Canadians, aged 16+
MethodsDiscrete Choice Experiment
• Random utility theory
• Tested 4 product attributes
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsFlavour Tobacco
Menthol
Coffee
Cherry
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsNicotine content None (0 mg)
Low (6-8 mg)
Medium (10-12 mg)
High (16 mg)
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsHealth warning None
“Health Canada has not approved this product for quitting smoking.” [HC]
“This product is intended for use by existing smokers. It contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance.” [EC1]
“This product is intended for use by existing smokers aged 18 or over as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. It contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. Consult your doctor if you are pregnant, breast feeding, allergic to nicotine or propylene glycol, or have high blood pressure.” [EC2]
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsPrice Low ($ 7.99)
High ($ 9.99)
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsFlavour Tobacco
MentholCoffeeCherry
Nicotine content NoneLowMediumHigh
Health warning NoneHCEC1EC2
Price Low ($ 7.99)High ($ 9.99)
MethodsProduct Attributes Product Attribute LevelsFlavour Tobacco
MentholCoffeeCherry
Nicotine content NoneLowMediumHigh
Health warning NoneHCEC1EC2
Price Low ($ 7.99)High ($ 9.99)
$ 9.99
MethodsDiscrete Choice Experiment – Design
Fractional factorial main effects design• 16 pack profiles
• Arranged into 20 choice sets
• Each set containing 4 pack profiles + “none”
Source: Kuhfeld, W. (2010). Marketing research methods in SAS.
MethodsChoice Set #1
$ 9.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99
None of the above
MethodsWhich one of these products do you think would taste better?
$ 9.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99
None of the above
MethodsWhich one of these products do you think would be less harmful?
$ 9.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99
None of the above
MethodsWhich one of these products do you think would help someone quit smoking?
$ 9.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99 $ 7.99
None of the above
MethodsAnalyses
Multinomial logit models1. Attribute-level importance2. Attribute importance
Results
ResultsSample Characteristics (n = 1,188)
Characteristic % (n)
Age (years)
Mean (SD) 32.8 (SD = 16.0)
Gender
Male 42.4% (504)
Female 57.6% (684)
Perceptions of product tasteAttribute-Level Importance
Parameter Estimate SignificanceFlavour
Tobacco - 0.30 p < 0.0001Menthol - 0.16 p < 0.0001
Coffee 0.02 p = 0.1546Cherry 0.44 p < 0.0001
Nicotine content None - 0.02 p = 0.2249
Low 0.10 p < 0.0001Medium - 0.02 p < 0.0001
High - 0.07 p < 0.0001
Health warning None 0.13 p < 0.0001
HC - 0.24 p < 0.0001EC1 - 0.05 p = 0.0010EC2 0.16 p < 0.0001
Price Low 0.11 p < 0.0001High - 0.11 p < 0.0001
Perceptions of product tasteAttribute-Level Importance
E-cigarettes with the following characteristics were perceived as better-tasting:
• Cherry flavour (p < 0.0001);
• Low nicotine (p < 0.0001);
• No health warning (p < 0.0001) and the EC2 health warning (p < 0.0001);
• Lower price (p < 0.0001)
Perceptions of product tasteAttribute Importance
Parameter Estimate Utility Range Relative Importance
Flavour
Tobacco - 0.30 0.74 48%Menthol - 0.16
Coffee 0.02 Cherry 0.44
Nicotine content None - 0.02 0.17 11%
Low 0.10 Medium - 0.02
High - 0.07
Health warning None 0.13 0.40 26%
HC - 0.24 EC1 - 0.05 EC2 0.16
Price Low 0.11 0.22 15%High - 0.11
Perceptions of product tasteAttribute Importance
Parameter Estimate Utility Range Relative Importance
Flavour
Tobacco - 0.30 0.74
48%
Menthol - 0.16Coffee 0.02Cherry 0.44
Nicotine content None - 0.02 0.17
11%
Low 0.10Medium - 0.02
High - 0.07
Health warning None 0.13 0.40
26%
HC - 0.24EC1 - 0.05EC2 0.16
Price Low 0.11 0.22
15%
High - 0.11
Perceptions of product tasteAttribute Importance
26%
48%
15%11%
Health warning FlavourPrice Nicotine content
Perceptions of product harmAttribute-Level Importance
E-cigarettes with the following characteristics were perceived as less harmful:
• Menthol (p < 0.0001) and coffee (p < 0.0001) flavours;
• Low nicotine (p < 0.0001);
• No health warning (p < 0.0001) and the EC2 health warning (p < 0.0001);
• Lower price (p < 0.0001)
Perceptions of product harmAttribute Importance
35% 36%
14% 15%
Health warning FlavourPrice Nicotine content
Perceptions of product quit efficacyAttribute-Level Importance
E-cigarettes with the following characteristics were believed to help someone quit smoking:
• Menthol (p < 0.0001) and coffee (p < 0.0001) flavours;
• Low nicotine (p < 0.0001);
• No health warning (p < 0.0001) and the EC2 health warning (p < 0.0001);
• Lower price (p < 0.0001)
Perceptions of product quit efficacyAttribute Importance
39%
26% 25%
10%
Health warning FlavourPrice Nicotine content
Summary• Health warnings were the most influential drivers of
participants’ perceptions of product quit efficacy
• Flavour was the strongest predictor of perceptions of taste
• Flavour and health warnings significantly predicted perceptions of product harm
Strengths & LimitationsStrengths• DCE design
Limitations• Design did not include all attribute-level combinations• Testing of a subset of attributes• Use of a non-probability-based sample
ImplicationsRegulatory Framework for E-cigarettes• Potential targets for regulation• Flavour and health warnings
AcknowledgementsResearch Team• David Hammond, Maciej Goniewicz, Towhidul Islam,
Kathy Kotnowski
Funding Sources
Perceptions of product tastePack Utility
Parameter EstimateFlavour
Tobacco - 0.30Menthol - 0.16
Coffee 0.02Cherry 0.44
Nicotine content None - 0.02
Low 0.10Medium - 0.02
High - 0.07
Health warning None 0.13
HC - 0.24EC1 - 0.05EC2 0.16
Price Low 0.11
High - 0.11
Which one of these products do you think would taste better?
$ 9.99
Utility = 0.38
Perceptions of product tastePack Utility
Perceptions of product tastePack Utility
Perceptions of product tastePack Utility
Perceptions of product harmPack Utility
Perceptions of product harmPack Utility
Perceptions of product harmPack Utility
Perceptions of product quit efficacyPack Utility
Perceptions of product quit efficacyPack Utility
Related Documents
