21 and older, any sex, with Tobacco Product Beliefs and Use. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
General Relative Harm PerceptionPrimary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
Single item measure asking participants how harmful they think daily use of the viewed smokeless tobacco product would be to their health compared to daily cigarette smoking, (1=a lot less harmful, 2=somewhat less harmful, 3=about the same, 4=somewhat more harmful, 5=a lot more harmful). Higher scores mean thinking the viewed smokeless tobacco product is more harmful than cigarettes.
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
3.04
± 0.79
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
2.76
± 0.81
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
2.84
± 0.83
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
3.19
± 0.88
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.00
± 0.82
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
2.97
± 0.78
Perceptions of Perceived Relative Risks of DiseasesPrimary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
Assessment of perceived risks of getting various smoking related diseases from using the viewed smokeless tobacco product versus from smoking cigarettes. Responses to 6 parallel questions (each asking about a different disease) were averaged together in this composite item. The question stated: "If you used only \[General Snus/Copenhagen - inserted based on brand condition\] or only cigarettes every day, which product would make it more likely that you would get": 1) lung cancer; 2) heart disease; 3) mouth cancer; 4) stroke; 5) chronic bronchitis; 6) emphysema. Response options to each were on
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
3.34
± 0.60
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.44
± 0.56
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
3.33
± .71
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
3.29
± .61
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.29
± .57
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
3.38
± .53
Absolute Harm PerceptionPrimary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
Single item measure asking participants how likely or unlikely they think the viewed smokeless tobacco product would be to cause serious health problems during their lifetime, if they used it every day (from 1=not at all likely to 5=extremely likely). Higher scores mean greater likelihood of thinking the product is harmful to health.
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
3.49
± 0.91
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.10
± 0.94
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
3.43
± 0.99
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
3.60
± 0.98
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.35
± 0.96
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
3.58
± 0.96
Product Use IntentionsPrimary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
Assessment of intentions to use the viewed smokeless tobacco products based on averaging responses to three parallel questions: "Thinking about the ads you saw for \[General Snus or Copenhagen\] products, how interested, in the next 6 months, would you be in: 1) Using or trying these products? 2) Using these products as a way to quit or cut down on your cigarette smoking? 3) Completely switching from cigarettes to these products? Response options to each were on a 5 point scale from (1=not at all interested to 5=extremely interested). Results presented here are based on the averaged responses
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
1.52
± 0.85
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
1.55
± 0.82
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
1.48
± 0.88
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
1.45
± .83
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
1.41
± .75
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
1.36
± .70
Risk Message RecallSecondary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
Participants are asked to recall (yes/no) if the ads they viewed include any statement saying that using the product can lower risks of certain diseases.
Yes
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
25
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
163
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
141
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
16
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
145
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
157
No
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
188
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
46
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
62
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
193
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
63
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
56
Ad PersuasivenessSecondary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
A composite measure based on the average of 6 advertisement perceptions, asking participants to rate whether they agreed or disagreed that they ads they viewed: 1) included important information; 2) were understandable; 3) included believable information; 4) included credible information; 5) included information new to me; 6) make me want to learn more about those products. Response options were on a 6 point agreement scale from 1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree. Higher scores mean greater agreement that the ads were effective and persuasive.
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
3.55
± 0.94
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.53
± 0.97
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
3.37
± 1.13
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
3.36
± 1.02
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.22
± 0.95
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
3.34
± 1.00
Claim Believability & CredibilitySecondary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
A composite measure based on the average of 2 claim perception items, asking participants to rate whether they agreed or disagreed that the modified-risk claim in the ads they viewed was : 1) believable 2) credible. Participants responded to this while seeing the claim again on the survey screen. Response options were on a 7 point agreement scale from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Higher scores mean greater agreement that the claims were believable and credible.
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.56
± 1.55
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
3.88
± 1.74
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
2.83
± 1.55
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
3.91
± 1.68
Overall Perceived Claim PersuasivenessSecondary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
A composite measure based on the average of 7 claim perception items, asking participants to rate whether they agreed or disagreed that the modified-risk claim in the ads they viewed was : 1) believable; 2) credible; 3) important; 4) new to me; 5) makes me think using this product could be less harmful to my health than smoking; 6) makes me more interested in trying this product; 7) would make me think seriously about completely switching to this product. Participants responded to this while seeing the claim again on the survey screen. Response options were on a 7 point agreement scale from 1=
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3.51
± 1.19
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
3.47
± 1.33
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
2.86
± 1.26
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
3.31
± 1.29
Switching ComprehensionSecondary· Assessed in survey measures completed immediately after viewing the study stimuli
An item assessing participants' understanding of the need to completely switch to the smokeless tobacco product viewed in order to reduce risks. It said:
Please answer the next question based on your understanding of the ads you viewed earlier. Based on the ads, \[General Snus OR Copenhagen, inserted based on condition\] can reduce a smoker's health risks if you: (Select all that apply)
1. Use only \[General Snus/Copenhagen\] and not smoke any cigarettes anymore
2. Use \[General Snus/Copenhagen\] and smoke fewer cigarettes than before
3. Use both products (\[General Snus/Copenhagen\] and cig
Use only [General Snus/Copenhagen] and not smoke any cigarettes anymore
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
39
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
98
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
83
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
41
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
102
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
89
Use [General Snus/Copenhagen] and smoke fewer cigarettes than before
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
25
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
32
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
16
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
16
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
18
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
24
Use both products ([General Snus/Copenhagen] and cigarettes) about equally
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
9
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
3
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
12
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
9
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
7
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
6
None of the above
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
96
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
44
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
65
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
103
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
50
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
66
I don't know
Group
Value
95% CI
Group 1 (General Snus-Control Ads)
55
Group 2 (General Snus-Multiple Disease Ads)
47
Group 3 (General Snus- Lung Ads)
35
Group 4 (Copenhagen-Control Ads)
44
Group 5 (Copenhagen-Multiple Disease Ads)
40
Group 6 (Copenhagen- Lung Ads)
36
Sponsor's own description
This study will be an online survey experiment conducted with adults who smoke cigarettes (ages 21+) to examine their reactions to modified risk advertising claims authorized by the Food \& Drug Administration (FDA) for two smokeless tobacco brands (General Snus and Copenhagen), which describe the lower risks of these products compared to cigarette smoking. The study will compare effects of ads with different two different claim types (i.e. claims about reduced lung cancer risk and claims about reduced risks for multiple disease) versus ads with no reduced-risk claims, and examine effects on message and product perceptions, and interest in using the smokeless tobacco products. This study will also examine how smokers' reactions/interest may vary based on the product brand, and asses prior awareness/exposure to the authorized claims.
Publications & conference data
No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Last refreshed: 4 March 2026
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT06927700.