Search

BackgroundThe scientific term for the substance people inhale and exhale from a vaping device is ‘aerosol’, but whether the public uses this term is unclear. To inform tobacco control communication efforts, we sought to understand what tobacco users call e-cigarette aerosols.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 1628 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both (dual users). In an online survey, conducted in spring 2021, participants described what ‘people inhale and exhale when they vape’, using an open-ended and then a closed-ended response scale. Participants then evaluated warning statements, randomly assigned to contain the term ‘aerosol’ or ‘vapor‘ (eg, ‘E-cigarette aerosol/vapor contains nicotine, which can lead to seizures’).ResultsIn open-ended responses, tobacco users most commonly provided the terms ‘vapor’ (31%) and ‘smoke’ (23%) but rarely ‘aerosol’ (<1%). In closed-ended responses, the most commonly endorsed terms were again ‘vapor’ (57%) and ‘smoke’ (22%) but again infrequently ‘aerosol’ (2%). In closed-ended responses, use of the term ‘vapor’ was more common than other terms among people who were older; white; gay, lesbian or bisexual; college educated; or vape users only (all p<0.05). In the experiment, warnings using the terms ‘aerosol’ and ‘vapor’ were equally effective (all p>0.05).ConclusionsThe public rarely uses the term ‘aerosol’ to describe e-cigarette output, potentially complicating educational efforts that use the term. Future studies should explore public knowledge and understanding of the terms ‘aerosol’ and the more popular ‘vapor’ to better inform vaping risk communication.

PurposeTobacco prevention media campaigns are an important tool to address youth tobacco use. We developed a theory-based perceived message effectiveness (PME) Scale to use when vetting messages for campaigns.MethodsParticipants were a national sample of N=623 US adolescents (ages 13–17 years) recruited from a national probability-based panel. In an online experiment, we randomised adolescents to view tobacco prevention ads. All participants viewed an ad on smoking or vaping from the US Food and Drug Administration’s The Real Costcampaign and a control video, in a random order. After ad exposure, we assessed PME using nine candidate items and constructs for convergent and criterion validity analyses. We used confirmatory factor analysis and examined information curves to select the scale items.ResultsA brief PME scale with three items (α=0.95) worked equally well for demographically diverse adolescents with different patterns of tobacco use. The Real Costads generated higher PME scores than the control videos for both vaping and smoking (convergent validity; p<0.05). Higher PME scores were associated with greater attention, fear, cognitive elaboration and anticipated social interactions (convergent validity; r=0.31–0.66), as well as more negative attitudes toward and lower susceptibility to vaping and smoking (criterion validity; r=−0.14 to −0.37). A single-item PME measure performed similarly to the three-item version.ConclusionsThe University of North Carolina PME Scale for Youth is a reliable and valid measure of the potential effectiveness of vaping and smoking prevention ads. Employing PME scales during message development and selection may help youth tobacco prevention campaigns deploy more effective ads.

Community pharmacists are often the most accessible health professional in rural areas, which makes them well positioned to increase vaccine access in their communities. This study sought to document rural pharmacists’ ability to and interest in administering coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations.

From 2016 to 2019, the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded three Special Interest Projects focused on developing and testing multilevel HPV vaccination communication interventions. In this commentary, we highlight lessons learned from the funded projects, including the importance of engaging community members in the early stages of the research process, the challenges of evaluating multilevel interventions, and the need to consider stakeholder implementation preferences.

IntroductionThe pace and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with ongoing efforts by health agencies to communicate harms, have created a pressing need for data to inform messaging about smoking, vaping, and COVID-19. We examined reactions to COVID-19 and traditional health harms messages discouraging smoking and vaping.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 810 US adults recruited online in May 2020. All participated in a smoking message experiment and a vaping message experiment, presented in a random order. In each experiment, participants viewed one message formatted as a Twitter post. The experiments adopted a 3 (traditional health harms of smoking or vaping: three harms, one harm, absent) × 2 (COVID-19 harms: one harm, absent) between-subjects design. Outcomes included perceived message effectiveness (primary) and constructs from the Tobacco Warnings Model (secondary: attention, negative affect, cognitive elaboration, social interactions).ResultsSmokingmessages with traditional or COVID-19 harms elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging smoking than control messages without these harms (all p <0.001). However, including both traditional and COVID-19 harms in smoking messages had no benefit beyond including either alone. Smoking messages affected Tobacco Warnings Model constructs and did not elicit more reactance than control messages. Smoking messages also elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping. Including traditional harms in messages about vapingelicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping (p <0.05), but including COVID-19 harms did not.ConclusionsMessages linking smoking with COVID-19 may hold promise for discouraging smoking and may have the added benefit of also discouraging vaping.

ABSTRACTThe US’s 64 CDC-funded immunization programs are at the forefront of efforts to improve the quality of adolescent vaccination services. We sought to understand immunization program managers’ perspectives on partnering with healthcare systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake. Managers of 44 state and local immunization programs completed our online survey in 2019. Immunization managers strongly endorsed the importance of partnering with systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake (mean = 3.8/4.0), and most wanted to do so in the next year (mean = 3.5). Immunization managers reported that common barriers included difficulty contacting systems’ leadership (57%), differing organizational cultures (52%), and time (52%). Many perceived systems as not prioritizing HPV vaccination (77%). Immunization managers expressed strong interest in participating in a training on partnering with systems (mean = 3.5). Overall, immunization managers are highly interested in partnering with systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake. Training and other support are needed to expand programs’ capacity for such partnerships.

ABSTRACTHPV vaccination is recommended for U.S. adolescents at ages 11–12 and requires two versus three doses if the series is started before age 15. We evaluated how talking about recommended age or fewer doses motivates on-time HPV vaccination. Our national, online experiment randomized 1,263 parents of adolescents to view one of three messages about HPV vaccination recommendations or no message. Messages framed guidelines as recommending: vaccination at age 11–12; fewer doses for those who start vaccination at age 11–12; or, fewer doses for those who start vaccination before age 15. We then assessed parents’ preferred age for HPV vaccination, categorizing preferences of ≤12 years as on-time. Parents who viewed “at age 11–12” versus no message more often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (63% vs. 43%, p< .05) and did not differ from those viewing “fewer doses at age 11–12” (63% vs. 64%, p> .05). Parents who viewed “fewer doses before age 15” less often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (39%, p< .05). Recommending HPV vaccination at age 11–12 encouraged on-time vaccination, while offering fewer doses had little impact. Providers should avoid framing HPV vaccination guidelines in reference to age 15 because doing so may discourage on-time vaccination by introducing confusion about the recommended age.

BackgroundThe USA must publicly share information about harmful and potentially harmful constituents (chemicals) in tobacco products. We sought to understand whether webpages with chemical information are “understandable and not misleading to a lay person.”MethodsParticipants were a national probability sample of US adults and adolescents (n=1441, 18% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomly assigned participants to view one of the developed webpages (chemical names only, names with quantity ranges, names with visual risk indicators) or no webpage in phase one (between subjects). Participants completed a survey assessing knowledge, misunderstanding, perceived likelihood, perceived severity of health effects from smoking and quit intentions (smokers only). In phase two (within subjects), participants viewed all three webpage formats and reported webpage perceptions (clarity, usability, usefulness) and perceived impact (affect, elaboration, perceived effectiveness).ResultsIn phase one, viewing any webpage led to more knowledge of chemicals (48%–54% vs 28% no webpage, ps<0.001) and health harms (77% vs 67% no webpage, ps<0.001). When exposed to any webpage, 5%–23% endorsed misunderstandings that some cigarettes are safer than others. Webpage format did not affect knowledge or reduce misunderstandings. Viewing any webpage led to higher perceived likelihood of experiencing health effects from smoking (p<0.001) and, among smokers, greater intentions to quit smoking (p=0.04). In phase two, where participants viewed all formats, a visual risk indicator led to the highest perceived impact.ConclusionsKnowledge of chemicals and health effects can increase after viewing a website. Yet, websites may not correct the misunderstanding that some cigarettes are safer.

ABSTRACTProactive HPV vaccination at age 9 better prevents infection and improves vaccine series completion. Because national organizations recommend starting the vaccine at different ages, we sought to understand the impact of these recommendation frames. In 2022, we surveyed 2,527 US clinical staff (45% physicians) who provide HPV vaccine for children. We randomized respondents to one of three frames based on HPV vaccine recommendations of national organizations or a no-recommendation control, and assessed willingness to recommend HPV vaccine for children ages 9–10. Respondents also reported perceived benefits of HPV vaccination at ages 9 or 12. Recommending HPV vaccination “at ages 11–12” led to lower willingness to vaccinate at ages 9–10 than control (37% vs. 54%, p < .05). Recommending vaccination “at ages 9–12” led to similar willingness as control. However, “starting at age 9” led to higher willingness than control (63% vs. 54%, p < .05). Results were similar across respondents’ training, specialty, or years in practice, or their clinic’s rurality or healthcare system membership. More common benefits of recommending at age 9 than 12 were avoiding the topic of sex (24% vs. 10%, OR = 2.78, 95%CI: 2.23, 3.48) and completing the vaccine series before age 13 (56% vs. 47%, OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.23, 1.68). Less common benefits for age 9 were having parents ready to talk about HPV vaccine and agreeing to vaccination (both p < .05). An effective way to encourage proactive HPV vaccination is to say that it starts at age 9. Aligning national recommendations to start at age 9 can promote timely vaccination.

ABSTRACTThe US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice recommends routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination at 11–12 years of age, but states that vaccination may be initiated as early as 9 years. Our primary goal was to assess whether initiating HPV vaccination at 9–10 years of age, compared to 11–12, was associated with a higher rate of series completion by 13 years of age, and to identify factors associated with series completion by age 13. The study used vaccine claims and other data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (privately insured) and IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid (publicly insured) databases. Participants were 9–12 years of age and initiated HPV vaccination between January 2006 and December 2018 (publicly insured) or February 2019 (privately insured). Among 100,117 privately insured individuals, those initiating the HPV vaccination series at 9–10 years of age had a significantly higher series completion rate by 13 years of age than did those initiating at 11–12 years of age (76.2% versus 48.1%; p < .001). The same pattern was observed for 115,863 publicly insured individuals (70.4% versus 40.0%; p < .001). Provider and health care plan type, female sex, race/ethnicity, and wellness checks or non-HPV vaccinations during the baseline period were significantly associated with series completion by 13 years of age. Proactive initiation of HPV vaccination at 9–10 years of age was associated with higher rates of series completion by 13 years of age. These findings can inform provider education and other interventions to encourage timely HPV vaccination series completion.

ABSTRACTThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adolescents in the United States since 2006. Though recommended at a similar time to the routine recommendations for adolescent tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccination (Tdap) and quadrivalent meningococcal vaccination (MCV4), HPV vaccine uptake has consistently lagged behind these other adolescent vaccines. The ACIP recommends HPV vaccination at 11–12 y, with vaccination starting at 9 y of age included as an option that is routinely encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Cancer Society. To support efforts to increase HPV vaccination at the first opportunity, this commentary summarizes the current HPV vaccination recommendations and available evidence regarding HPV vaccination starting at 9 y – including recent studies and trials documenting the effectiveness of HPV vaccination at 9 in supporting vaccine series completion, while providing future directions for research and implementation to improve HPV vaccination.

The progression of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) to cervical cancer is well characterized, and risk factors for hrHPV including genetic predisposition, hormonal factors, host immune response, and cigarette smoking are well documented. Prevention of cervical cancer primarily relies on preventing hrHPV infection through vaccination, as well as treatment of precancerous lesions (high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN2/3] or adenocarcinoma in situ [ACIS]). Bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent HPV vaccines are prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) and widely licensed; however, less than 25% of low-income countries have HPV vaccination as part of their national immunization schedules.The WHO set a target for 194 countries to adopt HPV vaccination by 2030, and this article summarizes clinical data on the efficacy and effectiveness of HPV vaccination, its potential impact on incidence of invasive cervical squamous cell carcinoma (ICC), and strategies to increase access to and uptake of vaccination. Large online databases were searched for randomized control trials and population-based cohort studies in which HPV vaccination and pathologic diagnosis were documented in the data set. Several large-scale studies including a Cochrane review of 73,428 participants and a meta-analysis of more than 60 million, and data from National registries in Sweden, Japan, and the United Kingdom demonstrated that HPV vaccination is safe and leads to prevention of cervical precancer. In April 2022, the WHO updated its recommendation to be 1 or 2 doses for girls aged 9–14 years; 1 or 2 doses for girls aged 15–20 years; and 2 doses separated by 6 months for women older than 21.Eight of every 10 cases of IIC occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and ICC is the leading cause of death from cancer among women in sub-Saharan Africa. Disparities among these countries are driven by inequity in access to prevention and treatment of cancer. Global HPV vaccination coverage for girls is approximately 18% for a first dose and 13% for series completion. On the supply side, barriers to vaccination include prohibitive cost of vaccines for many LMICs and the requirement for refrigeration of all licensed vaccines. Promisingly, a new quadrivalent prophylactic HPV vaccine is becoming available in 2023 in India that may significantly reduce the cost of vaccine doses and may not require refrigeration. On the demand side, misinformation, cultural views on sex, and mistrust of the medical system are major barriers. According to data from 37 registries in 20 countries, without changing the rate of HPV vaccination or cervical cancer screening, the global burden will increase from an estimated 600,000 in 2020 to 1.3 million in 2069. Models demonstrate that a rapid scale up of HPV vaccination to more than 80% of adolescent girls and continued or increased screening could result in 13 million cases of ICC averted in LMICs and an incidence of ICC less than 4 per 100,000 women worldwide.Robust literature and extensive modeling show us that HPV vaccination is effective in preventing infection with the virus, cervical precancers, ICC, and with the help of biomedical and policy innovation; the near elimination of cervical cancer is possible in countries with robust uptake of the vaccine.

ABSTRACTHPV vaccination coverage in the United States (US) falls short of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% coverage among 13–15 year-old adolescents. Pharmacies are a promising alternative vaccine delivery site that may increase access to HPV vaccination. Our objective was to assess pharmacists’ insights into HPV vaccination provision to adolescents. We recruited 40 licensed pharmacists in eight states with different pharmacy vaccination laws: Alabama, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. Eligible pharmacists either previously provided or were currently providing HPV, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, or meningococcal vaccines to adolescents aged 9–17 years. Pharmacists were administered a semi-structured survey to explore insights into HPV vaccination provision. Forty-five percent of surveyed pharmacies offered HPV vaccination to adolescents. Pharmacists’ reported challenges to providing HPV vaccination were parental consent (28%), tracking and patient recall (17%), perceived stigma of vaccination (17%), and education about or promotion of vaccination (17%). Pharmacists offering HPV vaccination sent patient reminders for vaccines with multiple doses (89%) and utilized telephone reminders (72%). Pharmacists informed patients’ primary care providers of HPV vaccination doses most commonly through fax (72%) and updating electronic medical records (22%). One-third of pharmacists reported vaccination provision using the state immunization information system (IIS). Seventy-five percent reported vaccination rates could be increased at their respective pharmacy. Pharmacies are underutilized, although highly accessible, for HPV vaccination in the US. National efforts should expand educational programs to improve public awareness of in-pharmacy HPV vaccination, and improve the utilization of state IIS for reporting immunization coverage of adolescents by pharmacists.

ABSTRACTPharmacies are promising alternative settings for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination because of their population reach, convenience, and existing infrastructure for vaccine delivery. However, pharmacies in the US are rarely used for adolescent HPV vaccination. We sought to document challenges and opportunities of implementing pharmacy-located HPV vaccination services in five US states by mapping process evaluation results onto key implementation science constructs: service penetration, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, adoption, and sustainability. Pilot projects were planned in North Carolina (k = 2 pharmacies), Michigan (k = 10), Iowa (k = 2), Kentucky (k = 1), and Oregon (no pharmacy recruited) with varying procedures and recruitment strategies. Sites had open enrollment for a combined 12 months. Despite substantial efforts in these states, only 13 HPV vaccine doses were administered to adolescents and three doses to age-eligible young adults. We identified two major reasons for these underperforming results. First, poor outcomes on service penetration and appropriateness pointed to engagement barriers: low parent demand and engagement among pharmacy staff. Second, poor outcomes on feasibility, adoption, and sustainability appeared to result from administrative hurdles: lacking third party reimbursement (i.e., billing commercial payers, participation in Vaccines for Children program) and limited integration into primary care systems. In summary, pilot projects in five states all struggled to administer HPV vaccines. Opportunities for making pharmacies a successful setting for adolescent HPV vaccination include expanding third party reimbursement to cover all vaccines administered by pharmacists, increasing public awareness of pharmacists’ immunization training, and improving care coordination with primary care providers.

Providers who received quality improvement coaching reported more positive attitudes and self-efficacy toward HPV vaccination. In-person coaching reached more providers per clinic than webinar coaching.State health departments commonly use quality improvement coaching as an implementation strategy for improving low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but such coaching can be resource intensive. To explore opportunities for improving efficiency, we compared in-person and webinar delivery of coaching sessions on implementation outcomes, including reach, acceptability, and delivery cost. In 2015, we randomly assigned 148 high-volume primary care clinics in Illinois, Michigan, and Washington State to receive either in-person or webinar coaching. Coaching sessions lasted about 1 hr and used our Immunization Report Card to facilitate assessment and feedback. Clinics served over 213,000 patients ages 11–17. We used provider surveys and delivery cost assessment to collect implementation data. This report is focused exclusively on the implementation aspects of the intervention. More providers attended in-person than webinar coaching sessions (mean 9 vs. 5 providers per clinic, respectively, p= .004). More providers shared the Immunization Report Card at clinic staff meetings in the in-person than webinar arm (49% vs. 20%; p= .029). In both arms, providers’ belief that their clinics’ HPV vaccination coverage was too low increased, as did their self-efficacy to help their clinics improve (p< .05). Providers rated coaching sessions in the two arms equally highly on acceptability. Delivery cost per clinic was $733 for in-person coaching versus $461 for webinar coaching. In-person and webinar coaching were well received and yielded improvements in provider beliefs and self-efficacy regarding HPV vaccine quality improvement. In summary, in-person coaching cost more than webinar coaching per clinic reached, but reached more providers. Further implementation research is needed to understand how and for whom webinar coaching may be appropriate.

BackgroundThe USA can require tobacco companies to disclose information about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, but the impact of these messages is uncertain. We sought to assess the effect of placing messages about toxic chemicals on smokers’ cigarette packs.MethodsParticipants were 719 adult cigarette smokers from California, USA, recruited from September 2016 through March 2017. We randomly assigned smokers to receive either factual messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke and their health harms (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) on the side of their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. The primary trial outcome was intention to quit smoking.ResultsIn intent-to-treat analyses, smokers whose packs had chemical messages did not have higher intentions to quit smoking at the end of the trial than those whose packs had control messages (P=0.56). Compared with control messages, chemical messages led to higher awareness of the chemicals (28% vs 15%, P<0.001) and health harms (60% vs 52%, P=0.02) featured in the messages. In addition, chemical messages led to greater negative affect, thinking about the chemicals in cigarettes and the harms of smoking, conversations about the messages and forgoing a cigarette (all P<0.05).DiscussionChemical messages on cigarette packs did not lead to higher intentions to quit among smokers in our trial. However, chemical messages informed smokers of chemicals in cigarettes and harms of smoking, which directly supports their implementation and would be critical to defending the messages against cigarette company legal challenges.Trial registration numberNCT02785484.

BackgroundA prevailing hypothesis is that health warnings for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could drive people away from vaping and towards smoking cigarettes. We consider an alternative hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings discourage both vaping and smoking.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 2218 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both. In August 2018, we randomised participants to one of three warning types(control text about littering, text-only e-cigarette warning or pictorial e-cigarette warning). We further randomised participants viewing e-cigarette warnings to one of three topics(nicotine addiction, health hazards of use, or both health hazards and harms of use). The preregistered primary outcome was intentions to quit vaping among e-cigarette users. Secondary outcomes included interest in smoking and Tobacco Warnings Model constructs: attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions and cognitive elaboration.ResultsText warnings elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than control among e-cigarette users (d=0.44, p<0.001), and pictorial warnings elicited still higher intentions to quit vaping than text (d=0.12, p<0.05). Text warnings elicited lower interest in smoking compared with control among smokers (p<0.05); warnings had no other effects on interest in smoking among smokers or non-smokers. Text warnings about health hazards elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than nicotine addiction warnings. E-cigarette warnings also increased Tobacco Warnings Model constructs.DiscussionE-cigarette health warnings may motivate users to quit vaping and discourage smoking. The most promising warnings include health hazards (other than nicotine addiction) and imagery. We found no support for the hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings could encourage smoking cigarettes.

ABSTRACTThis article provides best and promising practices for recommending HPV vaccination at age 9 as a way to ensure high uptake. An effective method for recommending HPV vaccination is the Announcement Approach, which consists of 3 evidence-based steps. The first step, Announce, involves noting that the child is 9 years old, saying they are due for a vaccine that prevents 6 HPV cancers, and saying you’ll vaccinate today. This adapted version of the Announce step simplifies the bundled approach used at ages 11–12 that emphasizes the prevention of meningitis and whooping cough in addition to HPV cancers. For hesitant parents, the second step, Connect and Counsel, involves finding common ground with the parent and communicating the value of starting HPV vaccination at the first opportunity. Finally, for parents who decline, the third step is to Try Againat a later visit. Using the Announcement Approach at age 9 stands to increase HPV vaccine uptake, save time, and lead to high family and provider satisfaction.

ObjectivesSelf-collection of cervico-vaginal samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to make cervical cancer screening more accessible to underscreened women. We evaluated the acceptability and ease of use of home-based HPV self-collection within a diverse population of low-income, infrequently screened women.MethodsParticipants were low-income women from North Carolina who had not received Pap testing in 4 or more years. Eligible women received a self-collection kit containing instructions and a brush for home-based sample collection. A total of 227 women returned a self-collected sample by mail and completed a questionnaire to assess their experiences with HPV self-collection. We described acceptability measures and used logistic regression to identify predictors of overall positive thoughts about the self-collection experience.ResultsNearly all women were willing to perform HPV self-collection again (98%) and were comfortable receiving the self-collection kit in the mail (99%). Overall, 81% of participants reported positive thoughts about home-based self-collection. Women with at least some college education and those who were divorced, separated or widowed were more likely to report overall positive thoughts. Aspects of self-collection that participants most commonly reported liking included convenience (53%), ease of use (32%) and privacy (23%). The most frequently reported difficulties included uncertainty that the self-collection was done correctly (16%) and difficulty inserting the self-collection brush (16%).ConclusionsHome-based self-collection for HPV was a highly acceptable screening method among low-income, underscreened women and holds the promise to increase access to cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.

ObjectiveUnder US law, tobacco product marketing may claim lower exposure to chemicals, or lower risk of health harms, only if these claims do not mislead the public. We sought to examine the impact of such marketing claims about potential modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs).MethodsParticipants were national samples of 4797 adults and 969 adolescent US smokers and non-smokers. We provided information about a potential MRTP (heated tobacco product, electronic cigarette or snus). Experiment 1 stated that the MRTP was as harmful as cigarettes or less harmful (lower risk claim). Experiment 2 stated that the MRTP exposed users to a similar quantity of harmful chemicals as cigarettes or to fewer chemicals (lower exposure claim).ResultsClaiming lower risk led to lower perceived quantity of chemicals and lower perceived risk among adults and adolescents (all p<0.05, Experiment 1). Among adults, this claim led to higher susceptibility to using the MRTP (p<0.05). Claiming lower exposure led to lower perceived chemical quantity and lower perceived risk (all p<0.05), but had no effect on use susceptibility (Experiment 2). Participants thought that snus exposed users to more chemicals and was less safe to use than heated tobacco products or electronic cigarette MRTPs (Experiments 1 and 2).DiscussionRisk and exposure claims acted similarly on MRTP beliefs. Lower exposure claims misled the public to perceive lower perceived risk even though no lower risk claim was explicitly made, which is impermissible under US law.

ObjectivePictorial warnings on cigarette packs increase motivation to quit smoking. We sought to examine the potential mediating role of negative affect, message reactance (ie, an oppositional reaction to a message) and perceived risk in shaping quit intentions.MethodsIn 2014 and 2015, we randomly assigned 2149 adult US smokers to receive either pictorial warnings or text-only warnings applied to their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. Analyses used structural equation modelling with bootstrapped SEs to test our theorised mediational model.FindingsPictorial warnings increased negative affect, message reactance and quit intentions (all P<0.001), but not perceived risk (ie, perceived likelihood and severity of harms of smoking). Negative affect mediated the impact of pictorial warnings on quit intentions (mediated effect=0.16, P<0.001). Message reactance weakened the impact of pictorial warnings on quit intentions, although the effect was small (mediated effect=−0.04, P<0.001). Although pictorial warnings did not directly influence perceived risk, the model showed additional small mediation effects on quit intentions through negative affect and its positiveassociation with perceived risk (mediated effect=0.02, P<0.001), as well as reactance and its negativeassociation with perceived risk (mediated effect=−0.01, P<0.001).ConclusionsPictorial cigarette pack warnings increased quit intentions by increasing negative affect. Message reactance partially attenuated this increase in intentions. The opposing associations of negative affect and reactance on perceived risk may explain why pictorial warnings did not lead to observable changes in perceived risk.

The current study sought to examine the impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings on attention, message processing, and perceived effectiveness, through a systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. The review included 22 studies (N= 81,824 participants). Strengthened warnings increased attention to warnings, recall of warnings, and thinking about the health risks of smoking. Strengthened warnings also increased several perceived effectiveness outcomes, including perceptions that warnings reduce smoking and motivate quitting. Strengthened cigarette pack warnings achieve their goal of attracting attention and enhancing motivation to act. Strengthening warning policies should be a priority for tobacco control globally.

ABSTRACTBackground: We sought to estimate the national prevalence of HPV vaccine refusal and delay in a nationally-representative sample of parents of adolescents. We also compared parents who refused versus delayed HPV vaccine in terms of their vaccination beliefs and clinical communication preferences. Methods: In 2014 to 2015, we conducted an online survey of 1,484 US parents who reported on an 11- to 17-year-old child in their household. We used weighted multinomial logistic regression to assess correlates of HPV vaccine refusal and delay. Results: Overall, 28% of parents reported that they had ever “refused or decided not to get” HPV vaccine for their child, and an additional 8% of parents reported that they had “delayed or put off getting” HPV vaccine. Compared to no refusal/delay, refusal was associated with lower confidence in adolescent vaccination (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–0.91), lower perceived HPV vaccine effectiveness (RRR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), and higher perceived harms (RRR = 3.49, 95% CI, 2.65–4.60). In contrast, delay was associated with needing more information (RRR = 1.76, 95% CI, 1.08–2.85). Most parents rated physicians and information sheets as helpful for making decisions about HPV vaccination, although parents who reported refusal endorsed these resources less often. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that HPV vaccine refusal is common among parents of adolescents and may have increased relative to previous estimates. Because the vaccination beliefs and communication preferences of parents who refuse appear to differ from those who delay, targeted communication strategies may be needed to effectively address HPV vaccine hesitancy.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage remains low in the USA. The Society for Behavioral Medicine (SBM) supports the goals outlined by Healthy People 2020, the President's Cancer Panel, and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee to increase vaccination coverage among both males and females. SBM makes the following recommendations in support of efforts to reduce structural and other barriers to HPV vaccination services in order to increase rates of series completion. We encourage legislators and other policymakers to improve administration authority, insurance coverage, and reimbursement rates to healthcare providers who make the HPV vaccine available to adolescents; provide instrumental support to fund the development of school curricula on HPV vaccination; and increase public awareness that HPV vaccination can prevent cancer. We urge healthcare providers and healthcare systems to increase the strength, quality, and consistency of HPV vaccination recommendations for all eligible patients; to treat HPV vaccination as a routine preventive service; employ culturally appropriate communication strategies in clinical settings to educate eligible patients, parents, and guardians about the importance, effectiveness, and safety of HPV vaccination; and to strengthen and better coordinate the use of electronic medical records and immunization information systems.