Search

Households are a significant source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even during periods of low community-level spread. Comparing household transmission rates by SARS-CoV-2 variant may provide relevant information about current risks and prevention strategies. This investigation aimed to estimate differences in household transmission risk comparing the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants using data from contact tracing and interviews conducted from November 2021 through February 2022 in five U.S. public health jurisdictions (City of Chicago, Illinois; State of Connecticut; City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; State of Maryland; and State of Utah). Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate attack rates and relative risks for index case and household contact characteristics. Data from 848 households, including 2,622 individuals (median household size = 3), were analyzed. Overall transmission risk was similar in households with Omicron (attack rate = 47.0%) compared to Delta variant (attack rate = 48.0%) circulation. In the multivariable model, a pattern of increased transmission risk was observed with increased time since a household contact's last COVID-19 vaccine dose in Delta households, although confidence intervals overlapped (0-3 months relative risk = 0.8, confidence interval: 0.5-1.2; 4-7 months relative risk = 1.3, 0.9-1.8; ≥8 months relative risk = 1.2, 0.7-1.8); no pattern was observed in Omicron households. Risk for household contacts of symptomatic index cases was twice that of household contacts of asymptomatic index cases (relative risk = 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.9), emphasizing the importance of symptom status, regardless of variant. Uniquely, this study adjusted risk estimates for several index case and household contact characteristics and demonstrates that few characteristics strongly dictate risk, likely reflecting the complexity of the biological and social factors which combine to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the below competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. LES: Support for the present manuscript from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Association of State and Territorial Health Officers; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NRY: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares, ELC PPP, ELC EED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). BC: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) PPPHEA, ELC ED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). AP: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares, ELC PPP, ELC EED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). RH: Support for the present manuscript from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares (Constituted hourly wages and received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system); Grants or contracts from ELC PPP and Immunization Cooperative Agreements (Constituted hourly wages and received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). MP: Support for the present manuscript from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) (Cooperative agreement funding supported staff to conduct routine disease investigations and data analysis). TWW: Support for the present manuscript from DC Grant: CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) (Cooperative agreement funding supported staff to conduct routine disease investigations and data analysis)., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Children are capable of initiating COVID-19 transmission into households, but many questions remain about the impact of vaccination on transmission. Data from a COVID-19 Delta variant outbreak at an overnight camp in Texas during June 23-27, 2021, were analyzed. The camp had 451 attendees, including 364 youths aged  < 18 years and 87 adults. Detailed interviews were conducted with 92 (20.4%) of consenting attendees and 117 household members of interviewed attendees with COVID-19. Among 450 attendees with known case status, the attack rate was 41%, including 42% among youths; attack rates were lower among vaccinated (13%) than among unvaccinated youths (48%). The secondary attack rate was 51% among 115 household contacts of 55 interviewed index patients. Secondary infections occurred in 67% of unvaccinated household members and 33% of fully or partially vaccinated household members. Analyses suggested that household member vaccination and camp attendee masking at home protected against household transmission., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 2022.)

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, first detected in November 2021, was responsible for a surge in U.S. infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during December 2021-January 2022 (1). To investigate the effectiveness of prevention strategies in household settings, CDC partnered with four U.S. jurisdictions to describe Omicron household transmission during November 2021-February 2022. Persons with sequence-confirmed Omicron infection and their household contacts were interviewed. Omicron transmission occurred in 124 (67.8%) of 183 households. Among 431 household contacts, 227 were classified as having a case of COVID-19 (attack rate [AR] = 52.7%). † The ARs among household contacts of index patients who had received a COVID-19 booster dose, of fully vaccinated index patients who completed their COVID-19 primary series within the previous 5 months, and of unvaccinated index patients were 42.7% (47 of 110), 43.6% (17 of 39), and 63.9% (69 of 108), respectively. The AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who isolated (41.2%, 99 of 240) compared with those of index patients who did not isolate (67.5%, 112 of 166) (p-value <0.01). Similarly, the AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who ever wore a mask at home during their potentially infectious period (39.5%, 88 of 223) compared with those of index patients who never wore a mask at home (68.9%, 124 of 180) (p-value <0.01). Multicomponent COVID-19 prevention strategies, including up-to-date vaccination, isolation of infected persons, and mask use at home, are critical to reducing Omicron transmission in household settings., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Lynn E. Sosa reports being a past Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists STD Subcommittee chair. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: To inform prevention strategies, we assessed the extent of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and settings in which transmission occurred in a Georgia public school district., Methods: During 1 December 2020-22 January 2021, SARS-CoV-2-infected index cases and their close contacts in schools were identified by school and public health officials. For in-school contacts, we assessed symptoms and offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing; performed epidemiologic investigations and whole-genome sequencing to identify in-school transmission; and calculated secondary attack rate (SAR) by school setting (eg, sports, elementary school classroom), index case role (ie, staff, student), and index case symptomatic status., Results: We identified 86 index cases and 1119 contacts, 688 (61.5%) of whom received testing. Fifty-nine of 679 (8.7%) contacts tested positive; 15 of 86 (17.4%) index cases resulted in ≥2 positive contacts. Among 55 persons testing positive with available symptom data, 31 (56.4%) were asymptomatic. Highest SARs were in indoor, high-contact sports settings (23.8% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 12.7%-33.3%]), staff meetings/lunches (18.2% [95% CI, 4.5%-31.8%]), and elementary school classrooms (9.5% [95% CI, 6.5%-12.5%]). The SAR was higher for staff (13.1% [95% CI, 9.0%-17.2%]) vs student index cases (5.8% [95% CI, 3.6%-8.0%]) and for symptomatic (10.9% [95% CI, 8.1%-13.9%]) vs asymptomatic index cases (3.0% [95% CI, 1.0%-5.5%])., Conclusions: Indoor sports may pose a risk to the safe operation of in-person learning. Preventing infection in staff members, through measures that include coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, is critical to reducing in-school transmission. Because many positive contacts were asymptomatic, contact tracing should be paired with testing, regardless of symptoms., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Background: Performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests among children are limited despite the need for point-of-care testing in school and childcare settings. We describe children seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing at a community site and compare antigen test performance to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture., Methods: Two anterior nasal specimens were self-collected for BinaxNOW antigen and RT-PCR testing, along with demographics, symptoms, and exposure information from individuals ≥5 years at a community testing site. Viral culture was attempted on residual antigen or RT-PCR-positive specimens. Demographic and clinical characteristics, and the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, were compared among children (<18 years) and adults., Results: About 1 in 10 included specimens were from children (225/2110); 16.4% (37/225) were RT-PCR-positive. Cycle threshold values were similar among RT-PCR-positive specimens from children and adults (22.5 vs 21.3, P = .46) and among specimens from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (22.5 vs 23.2, P = .39). Sensitivity of antigen test compared to RT-PCR was 73.0% (27/37) among specimens from children and 80.8% (240/297) among specimens from adults; among specimens from children, specificity was 100% (188/188), positive and negative predictive values were 100% (27/27) and 94.9% (188/198), respectively. Virus was isolated from 51.4% (19/37) of RT-PCR-positive pediatric specimens; all 19 had positive antigen test results., Conclusions: With lower sensitivity relative to RT-PCR, antigen tests may not diagnose all positive COVID-19 cases; however, antigen testing identified children with live SARS-CoV-2 virus., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 2021.)

Background: Improved understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spectrum of disease is essential for clinical and public health interventions. There are limited data on mild or asymptomatic infections, but recognition of these individuals is key as they contribute to viral transmission. We describe the symptom profiles from individuals with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: From 22 March to 22 April 2020 in Wisconsin and Utah, we enrolled and prospectively observed 198 household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We collected and tested nasopharyngeal specimens by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) 2 or more times during a 14-day period. Contacts completed daily symptom diaries. We characterized symptom profiles on the date of first positive rRT-PCR test and described progression of symptoms over time., Results: We identified 47 contacts, median age 24 (3-75) years, with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR. The most commonly reported symptoms on the day of first positive rRT-PCR test were upper respiratory (n = 32 [68%]) and neurologic (n = 30 [64%]); fever was not commonly reported (n = 9 [19%]). Eight (17%) individuals were asymptomatic at the date of first positive rRT-PCR collection; 2 (4%) had preceding symptoms that resolved and 6 (13%) subsequently developed symptoms. Children less frequently reported lower respiratory symptoms (21%, 60%, and 69% for <18, 18-49, and ≥50 years of age, respectively; P = .03)., Conclusions: Household contacts with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported mild symptoms. When assessed at a single timepoint, several contacts appeared to have asymptomatic infection; however, over time all developed symptoms. These findings are important to inform infection control, contact tracing, and community mitigation strategies., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

Background: The evidence base for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is nascent. We sought to characterize SARS-CoV-2 transmission within US households and estimate the household secondary infection rate (SIR) to inform strategies to reduce transmission., Methods: We recruited patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and their household contacts in Utah and Wisconsin during 22 March 2020-25 April 2020. We interviewed patients and all household contacts to obtain demographics and medical histories. At the initial household visit, 14 days later, and when a household contact became newly symptomatic, we collected respiratory swabs from patients and household contacts for testing by SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We estimated SIR and odds ratios (ORs) to assess risk factors for secondary infection, defined by a positive rRT-PCR or ELISA test., Results: Thirty-two (55%) of 58 households secondary infection among household contacts. The SIR was 29% (n = 55/188; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-36%) overall, 42% among children (aged <18 years) of the COVID-19 patient and 33% among spouses/partners. Household contacts to COVID-19 patients with immunocompromised conditions and household contacts who themselves had diabetes mellitus had increased odds of infection with ORs 15.9 (95% CI, 2.4-106.9) and 7.1 (95% CI: 1.2-42.5), respectively., Conclusions: We found substantial evidence of secondary infections among household contacts. People with COVID-19, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions or those with household contacts with diabetes, should take care to promptly self-isolate to prevent household transmission., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

Repeating the BinaxNOW antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using 2 groups of readers within 30 minutes resulted in high concordance (98.9%) in 2110 encounters. Same-day repeat antigen testing did not significantly improve test sensitivity (77.2% to 81.4%) while specificity remained high (99.6%)., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Objective: To evaluate the risk of adverse birth outcomes among adults who use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) before and during pregnancy., Methods: Data from the 2016-2018 PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) were used to assess the association between e-cigarette use during the 3 months before and last 3 months of pregnancy among 79,176 individuals with a recent live birth and the following birth outcomes: preterm birth, small for gestational age, and low birth weight (LBW). Adjusted prevalence ratios were generated using average marginal predictions from multivariable logistic regression models. Models were stratified by prenatal combustible cigarette smoking and frequency of e-cigarette use (daily or less than daily use)., Results: In the 3 months before pregnancy, 2.7% (95% CI 2.6-2.9%) of respondents used e-cigarettes; 1.1% (95% CI 1.0-1.2%) used e-cigarettes during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Electronic cigarette use before pregnancy was not associated with adverse birth outcomes. Electronic cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with increased prevalence of LBW compared with nonuse (8.1% vs 6.1%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.66). Among respondents who did not also smoke combustible cigarettes during pregnancy (n=72,256), e-cigarette use was associated with higher prevalence of LBW (10.6%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.38-2.57) and preterm birth (12.4%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.20-2.39). When further stratified by frequency of e-cigarette use, associations were seen only for daily users., Conclusion: E-cigarette use during pregnancy, particularly when used daily by individuals who do not also smoke combustible cigarettes, is associated with adverse birth outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Limited data exist on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in children. We described infection rates and symptom profiles among pediatric household contacts of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019., Methods: We enrolled individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 and their household contacts, assessed daily symptoms prospectively for 14 days, and obtained specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and serology testing. Among pediatric contacts (<18 years), we described transmission, assessed the risk factors for infection, and calculated symptom positive and negative predictive values. We compared secondary infection rates and symptoms between pediatric and adult contacts using generalized estimating equations., Results: Among 58 households, 188 contacts were enrolled (120 adults; 68 children). Secondary infection rates for adults (30%) and children (28%) were similar. Among households with potential for transmission from children, child-to-adult transmission may have occurred in 2 of 10 (20%), and child-to-child transmission may have occurred in 1 of 6 (17%). Pediatric case patients most commonly reported headache (79%), sore throat (68%), and rhinorrhea (68%); symptoms had low positive predictive values, except measured fever (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44% to 100%). Compared with symptomatic adults, children were less likely to report cough (odds ratio [OR]: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.57), loss of taste (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.74), and loss of smell (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) and more likely to report sore throat (OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.04 to 11.18)., Conclusions: Children and adults had similar secondary infection rates, but children generally had less frequent and severe symptoms. In two states early in the pandemic, we observed possible transmission from children in approximately one-fifth of households with potential to observe such transmission patterns., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). CDC has published recommendations for health care providers regarding EVALI (2-4). Recently, researchers from Utah and New York published proposed diagnosis and treatment algorithms for EVALI (5,6). EVALI remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment. Because patients with EVALI can experience symptoms similar to those associated with influenza or other respiratory infections (e.g., fever, cough, headache, myalgias, or fatigue), it might be difficult to differentiate EVALI from influenza or community-acquired pneumonia on initial assessment; EVALI might also co-occur with respiratory infections. This report summarizes recommendations for health care providers managing patients with suspected or known EVALI when respiratory infections such as influenza are more prevalent in the community than they have been in recent months (7). Recommendations include 1) asking patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; 2) evaluating those suspected to have EVALI with pulse oximetry and obtaining chest imaging, as clinically indicated; 3) considering outpatient management for clinically stable EVALI patients who meet certain criteria; 4) testing patients for influenza, particularly during influenza season, and administering antimicrobials, including antivirals, in accordance with established guidelines; 5) using caution when considering prescribing corticosteroids for outpatients, because this treatment modality has not been well studied among outpatients, and corticosteroids could worsen respiratory infections; 6) recommending evidence-based treatment strategies, including behavioral counseling, to help patients discontinue using e-cigarette, or vaping, products; and 7) emphasizing the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months, including patients who use e-cigarette, or vaping products., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objectives: To explore women's knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about adverse outcomes associated with smoking during pregnancy and which outcomes might motivate cessation; to explore reactions to graphic warnings depicting 2 adverse outcomes., Methods: Twelve focus groups were conducted with women of childbearing age who were current smokers., Results: Participants had low to moderate awareness of many outcomes and believed it was acceptable to smoke in the first trimester before knowledge of pregnancy. Perceived susceptibility to outcomes was low. Motivators included risk-focused information, especially serious risks to the baby (eg, stillbirth, SIDS). Graphic warnings produced strong reactions, especially the warning with a real photo., Conclusions: Despite barriers to reducing rates of smoking during pregnancy, educational information and photos depicting babies' risks could motivate women to quit.

Objective: To assess current and former smokers' reactions to US warning labels as a baseline for comparison to new labels., Methods: The mail-in Consumer-Styles survey was sent to a representative sample of US adult consumers in 2010 (N = 10,328)., Results: Among current smokers, 51.5% (95% CI: 47.5-55.5) reported that they had 'never/rarely' seen or looked closely at the labels in the past 30 days. Current smokers (91.1%) reported that warning labels never stopped them from having a cigarette (95% CI: 89.1-93.1) and that the labels had no effect on their likelihood of quitting (75.5%; 95% CI: 71.6-79.4)., Conclusions: Current warning labels do not make smokers think about the risks of smoking or have an effect on their likelihood of forgoing cigarettes or quitting.

Objective: To determine prevalence of smoking, quit ratios, and home smoking rules among Hispanics residing in colonias in El Paso, Texas., Methods: Face-to-face interviews with 1485 Hispanic adults. GeoFrame™ field enumeration methods were used to develop a sampling frame from households in randomly selected colonias., Results: The overall percent of current cigarette smoking was 14.6% (95% CI 12.4 to 16.8); Over 55% of smokers reported a serious quit attempt. Participants overwhelmingly reported that smoking was not allowed in their homes., Conclusions: Prevalence estimates for current smoking and restriction in the home were similar to those reported for recent national surveys.

Objectives: We sought to modify an instrument and to use it to collect information on smoking knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among Hispanics/Latinos, and to adapt survey methods to obtain high participation levels. Methods. Promotoras (outreach workers) conducted face-to-face interviews with 1485 Hispanic adults (July 2007-April 2008). The project team used GeoFrame field enumeration methods to develop a sampling frame from households in randomly selected colonias (residential areas along the Texas-Mexico border that may lack some basic necessities (e.g. portable water), in El Paso, Texas., Results: The revised questionnaire included 36 unchanged items from the State Adult Tobacco Survey, 7 modified items, and 17 new items focusing on possible culturally specific quitting methods, secondhand smoke issues, and attitudes and knowledge about tobacco use that might be unique for Hispanic/Latino groups. The eligibility rate was 90.2%, and the conservative combined completed screener and interview response rate was 80.0%., Conclusions: Strategic, targeted, carefully designed methods and surveys can achieve high reach and response rates in hard-to-reach populations. Similar procedures could be used to obtain cooperation of groups who may not be accessible with traditional methods.

Current cigarette smoking combined with ever use of other tobacco products (lifetime polytobacco use) is important to examine as users may be at greater risk for illicit drug use, nicotine addiction, and adverse health outcomes. We determined estimates and patterns of lifetime polytobacco use and conducted multivariable analyses to determine demographic, family and friend, psychosocial, and lifestyle factors associated with use among a sample of Canadian young adults. Overall prevalence was 36.3% for current cigarette use; 10.1% for current cigarette use only and 26.2% for lifetime polytobacco use. Among polytobacco users, current cigarette use and ever cigar use was most frequent (67.2%). For males, the final model contained demographic, family and friends, and lifestyle factors. For females, the final model also included psychosocial factors. Illicit drug use was the strongest significant predictor for lifetime polytobacco use among males. We found gender specific differences when comparing lifetime polytobacco users to current cigarette-only users, in particular; male lifetime polytobacco users were more likely to use drugs and alcohol. Interventions focusing on individual substances should consider addressing combinations of use.

Objective: In 2002, the First Conference on Menthol Cigarettes brought together researchers from diverse backgrounds to summarize what is known about menthol cigarettes and the people who smoke them, and to identify areas of needed research on menthol cigarettes. Since the conference, PubMed reports 24 articles, including the conference proceedings, on menthol cigarettes and African Americans. Many of the articles address epidemiological or biomedical topics. While there has been some focus on social influences and marketing issues, more research and a greater focus on this topic are needed., Design: To stimulate research on a population disproportionately burdened by the health effects of smoking, we conducted small-group discussions in 2005 with adult African American smokers in Atlanta, Georgia. Each group discussion focused on a different topic: smoking behavior and preferences, perceptions of social influences, health effects and perceived harmfulness of menthol, quitting menthol cigarette smoking, or the influence of marketing and advertising of menthol cigarettes., Results: Themes emerged from the discussions: (1) emulation of black culture by white youth and racial integration of neighborhoods and communities may have modified the perception that African Americans smoke menthol cigarettes and whites smoke non-menthol cigarettes; (2) non-menthol cigarette smokers were thought to be 'hardcore' smokers with less interest in quitting; (3) switching to non-menthol cigarettes was discussed as a way of quitting cigarettes for habitual menthol smokers; and, (4) smoking menthol cigarettes was thought to lead to fewer negative health effects., Conclusion: Some topics suggested by the participants warrant further investigation. More research is needed to assess the pervasiveness of these beliefs and their potential utility for smoking cessation interventions.

Objective: To describe adult smokers' reactions to PREP print advertisements and promotional materials., Methods: Focus groups with adult smokers. Participants reacted to print advertisements and promotional materials for Omni, Accord, Advance Lights, Ariva, and Eclipse., Results: Images and text in PREP product advertising and promotional materials influence participants' decision to try PREPs. Participants believed the PREP ads target smokers who are trying to quit or smokers who are health conscious., Conclusion: Tracking and monitoring the reactions of smokers to novel products, their perceptions about them, and their use of these products are necessary for the design of effective health communication strategies.

Introduction: For the past 20 years, there have been no changes to the text-only cigarette warning labels in the United States. During this same time period, other countries placed large graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reactions of U.S. young adult smokers and nonsmokers aged 18 to 24 years to Canadian cigarette label text and graphic warnings. The study focused on determining their perceptions and the potential impact of Canadian labels on smoking, and study participants were asked for suggestions for modifications of U.S. cigarette warning labels so they would be effective for smoking deterrence and cessation., Methods: During January and February 2002, 11 focus groups consisting of 54 smokers and 41 nonsmokers were conducted in the Detroit metropolitan area. Current smokers were defined as those who had smoked a cigarette within the past 30 days. Participants were asked about their knowledge and perceptions of current U.S. cigarette warning labels and their impressions of Canadian cigarette warning labels., Analysis: A content analysis and a word index were applied to the transcripts of all focus groups to identify and clarify themes and domains that appeared in group discussions and to compare results across different groups., Results: Focus group participants reported that Canadian cigarette warning labels were more visible and informative than U.S. cigarette warning labels. Messages perceived to be relevant to smokers were considered effective. Education level did not appear related to how participants responded to warning labels. There were some differences for warning labels that had sex-specific messages., Discussion: Warning labels are one component of comprehensive tobacco control and smoking cessation efforts. Stronger warnings on cigarette packages need to be part of a larger U.S. public health educational effort.

Background: In 1984, the United States Congress enacted legislation requiring four new warning labels for cigarettes; warning labels in the United States have not changed since then. Other countries, such as Canada, have taken a more active and aggressive approach. The purpose of this study was to examine how U.S. smokers and former smokers might respond to stronger and more graphic warnings for U.S. cigarettes packages., Methods: Data were collected in 2003 and analyzed in 2004. The perceived impact and effectiveness of the more-explicit Canadian labels was examined among young adult smokers (n=572) and former smokers (n=191) between the ages of 18 and 24 years in the United States, using a web-based survey that allowed participants to view both the text-only and the text-plus-graphic warning labels., Results: Both current and former smokers thought that cigarette warning labels with text plus graphics were substantially more of a deterrent than text-only labels. The perceived effectiveness of these labels was not only higher overall, but also for the specific areas of smoking-related health effects, prevention, cessation, and maintenance of abstinence. Few differences were noted by gender., Conclusions: The findings from this study support previous research that has found that text-plus-graphic warning labels are more salient and potentially more effective than text-only labels.

Objective: To explore risk perceptions of traditional and nontraditional tobacco products (NTPs) among young adult smokers., Methods: Focus groups with African Americans, non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics. Risk ratings of light, regular, and menthol cigarettes and of NTPs and marijuana and cigarettes were compared., Results: Participants tended to view light cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes. Shisha and herbal products were rated as safer than traditional cigarettes, but there were differences in ratings by race/ethnicity, related to preferred cigarette variety., Conclusions: Health communication messages about the use of cigarettes and NTPs should consider risk perceptions about the products and racial/ethnic differences.

Background: Since 1989 when health warning labels appeared on Canadian cigarette packages, the labels have changed from text only covering less than one quarter of the package to text and graphics covering over half the package. This study examines how Canadians in their 20s feel about the current graphic warning labels and their potential to prevent smoking and encourage quitting., Methods: Participants between 20 and 24 years of age were part of a 10-year cohort study begun when the group was in Grade 6, with the purpose of examining factors that may affect smoking. Five questions about warning labels were added to the 2002 questionnaire requesting information on perceptions of the labels and their potential impact on smoking behaviours of young adults. One item had been included in previous questionnaires., Results: 32.8% (n = 1267) of the respondents were smokers, with males (35.6%) being more likely to smoke than females (30.4%). Current smokers were less likely than experimental/ex-smokers to believe that warning labels with stronger messages would make people their age less likely to smoke. Female current smokers were more likely to think about quitting., Conclusion: Despite the efforts taken in developing the labels, some young adults are skeptical about their effects. Warning labels may have to be modified to target issues that are relevant to young adults; gender differences are important in this modification. Warning labels can offer an additional component to a comprehensive tobacco control program, in that they provide health information.