Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:51:18.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4219 Discrepancies in flavor preferences among adult ever users of various tobacco products in the US – Findings from The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2015-2016)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2020

Liane M Schneller
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Dongmei Li
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Zahíra Quiñones-Tavárez
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Maciej Goniewicz
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Amanda Quisenberry
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Zidian Xie
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Irfan Rahman
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Scott McIntosh
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Richard O’Connor
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Deborah J. Ossip
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Flavorings differ between brands and tobacco products, potentially altering the sensory perceptions. This study aimed to examine discrepancies in flavor preference across various non-cigarette tobacco products among a national representative sample of US adult regular tobacco users. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 3 (W3) were used. Weighted prevalence of flavor preference for various tobacco products, including electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), traditional cigars, cigarillos/filtered cigars, hookah and snus/smokeless, was presented for 9,037 adult current and new former users of multiple flavored tobacco products. Within-subject flavor discrepancies were assessed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models considering the complex sampling design of the PATH study. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Most regular users of a flavored tobacco products reported using one flavor category per product. Fruit flavors, followed by tobacco, were the most common flavor categories among ENDS (32% and 25%, respectively) and hookah users (44% and 36%, respectively). Tobacco flavor was the most common among regular users of traditional cigars (80%), cigarillos/filtered cigars (55%), and smokeless tobacco (79%). Polytobacco users of ENDS and traditional cigars had the largest discrepancy, where about 68-76%% used different flavor categories when switching products. Conversely, polytobacco users of traditional cigars and cigarillos/filtered cigars had the lowest discrepancy (23-25%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Many consumers of multiple tobacco products had different flavor preferences when switching between products. In the event of a partial or full flavor ban for ENDS, these findings raise questions about consumer loyalty to a particular tobacco product or a particular flavor category. Conflict of Interest Description: MLG serves as a paid consultant for Johnson & Johnson and has received research grant from Pfizer, manufacturers of smoking cessation medications. The other authors have no conflicts to declare. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: MLG serves as a paid consultant for Johnson & Johnson and has received research grant from Pfizer, manufacturers of smoking cessation medications. The other authors have no conflicts to declare.

Type
Data Science/Biostatistics/Informatics
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020