Search

Introduction US tobacco manufacturers can seek authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market products using modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. To inform regulatory decisions, we examined the impact of MRTP claim specificity and content, including whether the claims produced halo effects (ie, inferring health benefits beyond what is stated). Aims and Methods Participants were 3161 US adult cigarette smokers. Using a two (general vs. specific) × 2 (risk vs. exposure) plus independent control design, we randomized participants to view one message from these conditions: general risk claim (eg, "smoking-related diseases"), general exposure claim (eg, "chemicals in smoke"), specific risk claim (eg, "lung cancer"), specific exposure claim (eg, "arsenic"), or control. Claims described the benefits of completely switching from cigarettes to the heated tobacco product IQOS. Results MRTP claims of any sort elicited a higher willingness to try IQOS relative to control (d  = 0.09, p  = .043). Claims also elicited lower perceived risk of disease and exposure to harmful chemicals for completely switching from cigarettes to IQOS (d  = –0.32 and –0.31) and partially switching (d  = –0.25 and d  = –0.26; all p  < .05). Relative to specific MRTP claims, general MRTP claims led to lower perceived risk and exposure for complete switching (d  = –0.13 and d  = –0.16) and partial switching (d  = –0.14 and d  = −0.12; all p  < .05). Risk and exposure MRTP claims had similar effects (all p  > .05). Discussion MRTP claims led to lower perceived risk and exposure, and higher willingness to try IQOS. General claims elicited larger effects than specific claims. MRTP claims also promoted unintended halo effects (eg, lower perceived risk of disease and chemical exposure for partial switching). Implications We found evidence that MRTP claims promoted health halo effects. In light of these findings, the FDA should require research on halo effects prior to authorization. Further, if an MRTP claim is authorized, FDA should require tobacco manufacturers to conduct post-market surveillance of how the claim affects consumer understanding, including partial switching perceived risk and exposure beliefs, as well as monitoring of dual-use behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2016–18, a large measles outbreak occurred in Romania identified by pockets of sub-optimally vaccinated population groups in the country. The aim of the current study was to gain insight into barriers and drivers from the experience of measles vaccination from the perspectives of caregivers and their providers. Methods Data were collected by non-participant observation of vaccination consultations and individual interviews with health workers and caregivers in eight Romanian clinics with high or low measles vaccination uptake. Romanian stakeholders were involved in all steps of the study. The findings of this study were discussed during a workshop with key stakeholders. Results Over 400 h of observation and 161 interviews were conducted. A clear difference was found between clinics with high and low measles vaccination uptake which indicates that being aware of and following recommended practices for both vaccination service delivery and conveying vaccine recommendations to caregivers may have an impact on vaccine uptake. Barriers identified were related to shortcomings in following recommended practices for vaccination consultations by health workers (e.g. correctly assessing contraindications or providing enough information to allow an informed decision). These observations were largely confirmed in interviews with caregivers and revealed significant knowledge gaps. Conclusions The identification of key barriers provided an opportunity to design specific interventions to improve vaccination service delivery (e.g. mobile vaccination clinics, use of an electronic vaccination registry system for scheduling of appointments) and build capacity among health workers (e.g. guidance and supporting materials and training programmes). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Aims and Methods Participants were a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents (ages 13–17 years) from a probability-based panel. In a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assigned adolescents to view one of four videos online: (1) a smoking prevention video ad from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) The Real Cost campaign, (2) a neutral control video about smoking, (3) a vaping prevention video ad from The Real Cost campaign, or (4) a neutral control video about vaping. We present effect sizes as Cohen's d , standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads led to more negative attitudes toward vaping compared with control (d  = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.53), while exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p -values > .05). Turning to spillover effects, exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads led to less susceptibility to vaping (d  = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.56, −0.12), more negative attitudes toward vaping (d  = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.65) and higher perceived likelihood of harm from vaping (d  = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.48), compared with control. Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p -values > .05). Conclusions This experiment found evidence of beneficial spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes and found no detrimental effects of vaping prevention ads on smoking outcomes. Implications Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Using a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents, we found beneficial evidence of spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes, which is promising since it suggests that smoking prevention campaigns may have the additional benefit of reducing both smoking and vaping among adolescents. Additionally, we found that vaping prevention campaigns did not elicit unintended consequences on smoking-related outcomes, an important finding given concerns that vaping prevention campaigns could drive youth to increase or switch to using combustible cigarettes instead of vaping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 vaccines are available for adolescents in the United States, but many parents are hesitant to have their children vaccinated. The advice of primary care professionals strongly influences vaccine uptake. Objective We examined the willingness of primary care professionals (PCPs) to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents. Methods Participants were a national sample of 1,047 US adolescent primary care professionals. They participated in an online survey in early 2021, after a COVID-19 vaccine had been approved for adults but before approval for adolescents. Respondents included physicians (71%), advanced practice providers (17%), and nurses (12%). We identified correlates of willingness to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents using logistic regression. Results The majority (89%) of respondents were willing to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, with advanced practice providers and nurses being less likely than paediatricians to recommend vaccination (84% vs. 94%, aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23–0.92). Respondents who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to recommend adolescent vaccination (92% vs. 69%, aOR 4.20, 95% CI 2.56–6.87) as were those with more years in practice (94% vs. 88%, aOR 2.93, 95% CI 1.79–4.99). Most respondents (96%) said they would need some measure of support in order to provide COVID-19 vaccination to adolescents, with vaccine safety and efficacy information being the most commonly cited need (80%). Conclusion Adolescent primary care professionals were generally willing to recommend COVID-19 vaccination. However, most indicated a need for additional resources to be able to administer COVID-19 vaccines at their clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many people incorrectly think that very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes. This risk misperception by people who smoke could reduce motivation to quit under a nicotine reduction policy. We qualitatively examined perspectives on campaign messages designed to reduce misperceptions.Aims and Methods: Adults who smoke from North Carolina participated in online interviews. After being introduced to the idea of a VLNC policy, participants were shown VLNC messages and asked about their perceptions on the clarity, understandability, persuasiveness, and meaning of the messages. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the transcripts.Results: Thirty adults who smoke cigarettes participated (15 females, 13 males, 2 nonbinary) with a mean age of 43 years. Central themes that emerged were: (1) Confusion about the proposed VLNC cigarette policy affected how messages were interpreted; (2) Messages that promote self-efficacy for quitting rather than guilt or fear were better received; and (3) Direct and succinct messages were seen as more able to grab attention and inform people who smoke. Some participant concerns focused on whether VLNC cigarettes would relieve their nicotine cravings and whether they would need to smoke more VLNC cigarettes to feel satisfied.Conclusion: Campaign messages to educate the public about the harmful effects of smoking VLNC cigarettes may be more effective if people who smoke are informed about the policy's rationale to understand why nicotine is removed rather than the other harmful chemicals. Messages should also acknowledge the difficulty of quitting and be short and direct to capture attention.Implications: Adults who smoke have some confusion about nicotine reduction in cigarettes and this affects how they perceive potential communication campaign messages about the risk of smoking VLNC cigarettes. In our qualitative research, we found that adults who smoke prefer messages about VLNC cigarettes that acknowledge the challenge of quitting and that are direct and succinct. With further development, campaign messages may be able to reduce misperceptions about VLNC cigarettes and maximize the public health benefit of a nicotine reduction policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents' interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording.Aims and Methods: Participants were 20 adolescents, ages 13-17 years from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews.Results: Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (eg, "will" instead of "could"). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as "harmful" and "dangerous" over "risky," which was viewed as easy to discount. The term "negative effects" was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than "health effects." Adolescents said that the term "vape" was preferable to "e-cigarette," and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity.Conclusions: Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error.Implications: This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused PME measure for tobacco and vaping prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Adolescent vaping remains a problem in the United States, yet little is known about what health warning themes most discourage vaping among adolescents. We sought to identify the most compelling themes for vaping warnings for US adolescents.Methods: Participants were a national probability sample of 623 US adolescents aged 13-17 years, recruited in the summer of 2020. Adolescents were randomized to one of the five warning message themes about the potential health effects of vaping: 1. chemical harms, 2. lung harms, 3. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) harms, 4. nicotine addiction, or 5. control (messages about vape litter). The primary outcome was perceived message effectiveness (PME; 3-item scale). Secondary outcomes were negative affect (fear), attention, anticipated social interactions, and message novelty.Results: Adolescents rated the chemical, lung, and COVID-19 harms warning messages higher on PME than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05), while nicotine addiction was rated higher than control (p < .05). The chemical, lung, and COVID-19 harms warning themes also elicited greater negative affect than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05). For all other secondary outcomes, the COVID-19 harms warning message theme was rated higher than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05).Conclusion: Adolescents perceived warning message themes about lung, chemical and COVID-19 health effects of vaping as more effective than nicotine addiction. To discourage vaping, the FDA and others should communicate to youth about the health effects of vaping beyond nicotine addiction.Implications: Adolescents rated warning message themes about the lung, chemical, and COVID-19 health effects of vaping as more effective than nicotine addiction, while nicotine addiction was rated as more effective than control themes about vaping litter. To discourage vaping among adolescents, health messaging should expand message themes to communicate about a broader set of health effects of vaping beyond nicotine addiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk perception is an important construct in many health behavior theories. Smoking risk perceptions are thoughts and feelings about the harms associated with cigarette smoking. Wide variation in the terminology, definition, and assessment of this construct makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the associations of risk perceptions with smoking behaviors. To understand optimal methods of assessing adults' cigarette smoking risk perceptions (among both smokers and nonsmokers), we reviewed best practices from the tobacco control literature, and where gaps were identified, we looked more broadly to the research on risk perceptions in other health domains. Based on this review, we suggest assessments of risk perceptions (1) about multiple smoking-related health harms, (2) about harms over a specific timeframe, and (3) for the person affected by the harm. For the measurement of perceived likelihood in particular (ie, the perceived chance of harm from smoking based largely on deliberative thought), we suggest including (4) unconditional and conditional items (stipulating smoking behavior) and (5) absolute and comparative items and including (6) comparisons to specific populations through (7) direct and indirect assessments. We also suggest including (8) experiential (ostensibly automatic, somatic perceptions of vulnerability to a harm) and affective (emotional reactions to a potential harm) risk perception items. We also offer suggestions for (9) response options and (10) the assessment of risk perception at multiple time points. Researchers can use this resource to inform the selection, use, and future development of smoking risk perception measures.Implications: Incorporating the measurement suggestions for cigarette smoking risk perceptions that are presented will help researchers select items most appropriate for their research questions and will contribute to greater consistency in the assessment of smoking risk perceptions among adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To reduce diet-related chronic disease, policymakers have proposed requiring health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Health warnings reduced purchases of these products by 22% in our recent randomized controlled trial, but the mechanisms remain unclear.Purpose: We sought to identify the psychological mechanisms that explain why SSB health warnings affect purchase behavior.Methods: In 2018, we recruited 400 adult SSB consumers to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic convenience store laboratory in North Carolina, USA. We randomly assigned participants to either a health warning arm (all SSBs in the store displayed a text health warning) or to a control arm (SSBs displayed a control label). Participants selected items to purchase with cash.Results: Compared to control labels, health warnings elicited more attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions, and thinking about harms (range of ds = 0.63-1.34; all p < .001). Health warnings also led to higher injunctive norms about limiting SSB consumption (d = 0.27, p = .008). Except for attention, all of these constructs mediated the effect of health warnings on SSB purchases (all p < .05). In contrast, health warnings did not influence other attitudes or beliefs about SSBs or SSB consumption (e.g., healthfulness, outcome expectations, and response efficacy).Conclusions: Health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages affected purchase behavior by eliciting negative emotions, increasing anticipated social interactions, keeping SSBs' harms at top of mind, and shifting norms about beverage consumption. Results are consistent with recent studies of why tobacco warnings influence quitting behavior, pointing toward a general framework for understanding how health warnings affect behavior.Clinical Trials Registration: NCT #03511937. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Evidence for the health harms of e-cigarettes is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful in health messaging. Our study sought to identify which harms tobacco product users were aware of and which most discouraged them from wanting to vape.Methods: Participants were a convenience sample of 1,872 U.S. adult e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users recruited in August 2018. In an online survey, participants evaluated 40 e-cigarette harms from seven categories: chemical exposures, device explosions, addiction, cardiovascular harm, respiratory harm, e-liquid toxicity, and other harms. Outcomes were awareness of the harms ("check all that apply") and the extent to which the harms discouraged vaping (5-point scale; (1) "not at all" to (5) "very much").Results: Awareness of most e-cigarette harms was modest, being highest for harms in the device explosions category of harms (44%) and lowest for the e-liquid toxicity category (16%). The harms with the highest mean discouragement from wanting to vape were the respiratory harm (M = 3.82) and exposure to chemicals (M = 3.68) categories. Harms in the addiction category were the least discouraging (M = 2.83) compared with other harms (all p < .001). Findings were similar for e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users.Conclusions: Addiction was the least motivating e-cigarette harm, a notable finding given that the current FDA e-cigarette health warning communicates only about nicotine addiction. The next generation of e-cigarette health warnings and communication campaigns should highlight other harms, especially respiratory harms and the chemical exposures that may lead to health consequences.Implications: E-cigarette health harms related to respiratory effects, chemical exposures, and other health areas most discouraged vaping among tobacco users. In contrast, health harms about addiction least discouraged use. Several countries have begun implementing e-cigarette health warnings, including the United States, and many others are considering adopting similar policies. To increase impact, future warnings and other health communication efforts should communicate about health harms beyond addiction, such as the effects of e-cigarette use on respiratory health. Such efforts should communicate that e-cigarette use is risky and may pose less overall risk to human health than smoking, according to current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The US Food and Drug Administration has increased communication efforts that aim to raise public awareness of the harmful constituents (ie, chemicals) in cigarette smoke. We sought to investigate whether the public's awareness of these chemicals has increased in light of such efforts.Methods: Participants were national probability samples of 11 322 US adults and adolescents recruited in 2014-2015 (wave 1) and 2016-2017 (wave 2). Cross-sectional telephone surveys assessed awareness of 24 cigarette smoke chemicals at both timepoints.Results: The proportion of US adults aware of cigarette smoke chemicals did not differ between waves 1 and 2 (25% and 26%, p = .19). In contrast, awareness of chemicals among adolescents fell from 28% to 22% (p < .001), mostly due to lower awareness of carbon monoxide, arsenic, benzene, and four other chemicals. Belief that most of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke come from burning the cigarette also fell from waves 1 to 2 (adults: 31% vs. 26%; adolescents: 47% vs. 41%, both ps < .05). Participants were more likely to be aware of cigarette smoke chemicals if they had been exposed to anti-smoking campaign advertisements (p < .05) or had previously sought chemical information (p < .05). Cigarette smoke chemical awareness did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers.Conclusion: Awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals remains low and unchanged among adults and decreased somewhat among adolescents. The association of chemical awareness with information exposure via campaigns and information seeking behavior is promising. More concerted communication efforts may be needed to increase public awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals, which could potentially discourage smoking.Implications: Awareness of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke may contribute to quitting. The US Food and Drug Administration is making efforts to increase public awareness of these chemicals. Two national surveys (2014-2017) found that chemical awareness was low among adults and adolescents. Although awareness did not change among adults, awareness among adolescents dropped over time. In addition, exposure to anti-smoking campaigns and chemical information seeking behavior were associated with higher awareness of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Campaigns and other efforts may be needed to increase awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs motivate smokers to quit, and yet the warnings' theoretical mechanisms are not clearly understood. To clarify the role that risk appraisals play in pictorial warnings' impacts, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature. We meta-analyzed 57 studies, conducted in 13 countries, with a cumulative N of 42,854. Pictorial warnings elicited greater cognitive elaboration (e.g., thinking about the risks of smoking; d = 1.27; p < .001) than text-only warnings. Pictorial warnings also elicited more fear and other negative affect (d = .60; p < .001). In contrast, pictorial warnings had no impact on perceived likelihood of harm (d = .03; p = .064), perceived severity (d = .16; p = .244), or experiential risk (d = .06; p = .449). Thus, while pictorial warnings increase affective and some cognitive risk appraisals, they do not increase beliefs about disease risk. We discuss the role of negative affect in warning effectiveness and the implications for image selection and warning implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a very low nicotine content (VLNC) product standard to substantially reduce nicotine in cigarettes. We examined whether learning about a potential VLNC standard increased smokers' interest in illicit purchases of cigarettes with regular nicotine content if such a standard were adopted.Methods: Participants were a national convenience sample of 1712 US adult smokers. In an online experiment, we randomly assigned smokers to view information about a new VLNC standard (experimental condition) or no information (control condition). The experimental condition explained that a VLNC standard would remove 95% of the nicotine in cigarettes and would require stores to only sell VLNC cigarettes. Then, the survey assessed smokers' interest in purchasing regular cigarettes from three illicit sources.Results: Smokers who learned about the VLNC standard were more likely to be very or extremely interested in purchasing regular cigarettes illicitly from a Web site compared to smokers in the control group (24% vs. 16%, p < .001). They were also more interested in illicitly buying cigarettes from a street vendor (19% vs. 13%, p < .001) and a store on an Indian reservation (28% vs. 22%, p < .05), compared to the control. The impact of learning about the VLNC standard on interest in illicit purchases did not differ by smoking frequency or current e-cigarette use.Conclusions: A VLNC standard could increase smokers' interest in illicit purchases of regular nicotine cigarettes. To prevent VLNC-induced illicit trade from undermining public health, FDA should consider proven measures such as track and trace for these products.Implications: Little is known about how a VLNC cigarette standard would affect consumer interest in regular content cigarettes purchased from illicit sources (eg, the Internet). We found that smokers informed about a potential VLNC product standard had greater interest in illicit cigarette purchases, compared to controls. This suggests the importance of proactive measures accompanying a VLNC standard, such as track-and-trace cigarette packaging regulations and communication campaigns, in order to maximize the standard's public health impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significance: The public incorrectly believes very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes, a belief associated with lower motivation to quit under a VLNC standard. We examined how different descriptions of the nicotine level in VLNC cigarettes affect the accuracy of the public's perceptions about nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk.Methods: Participants were a national convenience sample of 1353 US adults (22% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomized participants to a VLNC description using (1) concise language; (2) a percentage; (3) an interpretation; (4) a percentage and interpretation; (5) a percentage and a pictograph; or (6) a percentage, interpretation, and pictograph; or to a control description using (7) FDA's "minimally or nonaddictive" phrasing. We assessed accuracy of perceived nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk compared to current cigarettes.Results: Compared to control, the percentage description resulted in more accurate perceptions about nicotine content (76% vs. 49% accuracy) and addictiveness (44% vs. 34%), but less accurate perceptions about cancer risk (56% vs. 68%; all ps < .05). Adding interpretation or pictographs to the percentage description did not increase accuracy. The concise language description reduced accuracy of perceived nicotine content and addictiveness but increased accuracy of cancer risk (all ps < .05).Conclusions: Stating that 95% of nicotine would be removed more accurately conveyed the nicotine content and addictiveness of VLNC cigarettes. However, descriptions that better conveyed nicotine content and addictiveness misled people about cancer risk.Implications: Implementation of a VLNC standard should include plans for a communication campaign that conveys that VLNC cigarettes will be less addictive but equally toxic to smoke. Stating the percent reduction in nicotine is likely to more clearly communicate reduced addictiveness but may also exacerbate risk misperceptions. VLNC communication requires further study to ensure the public accurately understands a VLNC standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventionists commonly identify promising messages for health communication efforts based on audience members' ratings of perceived message effectiveness (PME).Purpose: We sought to validate a new PME measure that improved on existing scales by focusing on the behavior and respondent, being brief, and having strong psychometric properties.Methods: Participants were a national convenience sample of 999 adults and national probability samples of 1,692 adults and 869 adolescents recruited in 2015. Smokers and nonsmokers rated up to six brief messages about the chemicals in cigarette smoke on two PME scales. The first was the new three-item University of North Carolina (UNC) PME Scale that assessed effects perceptions. The second was an established six-item PME scale that assessed message perceptions. We examined the UNC PME Scale's psychometric properties and compared both scales using item factor analysis.Results: The UNC PME Scale measured the same construct across multiple chemical messages (all factor loadings ≥ 0.86). It exhibited high reliability (>0.85) over very low to moderate levels of PME (z = -2.5 to 0.2), a range that is useful for identifying more promising messages. Samples of adults and adolescents showed a similar pattern of results. As expected, the UNC PME Scale was strongly positively correlated with message perceptions (r = .84). It also exhibited strong psychometric properties among participants regardless of education, reactance, sex, and smoking status.Discussion: The UNC PME Scale reliably and validly measured PME among adults and adolescents from diverse groups. This brief scale may be used to efficiently evaluate candidate antismoking messages and may be suitable for adaptation to other health risk behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recommends prominent pictorial health warnings on tobacco products. To advance research methods, theory and understanding of how tobacco product warning labels (TPWLs) work, the US National Cancer Institute convened a grantee meeting. Our article describes the key insights that emerged from the meeting, situated within the context of the scientific literature.Results& Recommendations: First, presentations confirmed that large, pictorial TPWLs motivate people to try to quit and encourage smoking cessation. Second, pictorial TPWLs increase attention, knowledge, negative affect, and thinking about the warning. Third, TPWL studies have primarily used brief-exposure laboratory studies and observational studies of sustained exposure through national policy implementation, with a few randomized trials involving several weeks of exposure-with generally consistent results found across study designs. Fourth, novel assessment methods include brain imaging, eye tracking and "best-worst" discrete choice experiments. To make TPWL even more effective, research is needed to confirm the mechanisms of their influence, their impact across vulnerable populations, and their effect on social media posts about tobacco products. Research is also needed on the effect of trial design choices, the predictive validity of new measurement approaches, and warning labels for non-cigarette tobacco products.Implications: To improve scientific understanding of TPWL effects, this grantee meeting summary describes emerging research methods, theory and study results. Directions for future research include examination of the mechanisms of how warning labels work across diverse tobacco products and across different populations and contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm.Methods: Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were "organic," "natural," "additive-free," "light," or "regular;" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, "additive-free").Results: Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with "regular" and "light" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching.Conclusions: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising.Implications: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims in tobacco marketing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online convenience samples are a quick and low-cost way to study health behavior, but the comparability to findings from probability samples is not yet well understood.Purpose: We sought to compare convenience and probability samples' findings for experiments, correlates, and prevalence in the context of tobacco control research.Methods: Participants were a probability sample of 5,014 U.S. adults recruited by phone from September 2014 through May 2015 (cost ~U.S.$620,000) and an online convenience sample of 4,137 U.S. adults recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in December 2014 (cost ~U.S.$17,000). Participants completed a survey with experiments, measures of tobacco product use and demographic characteristics.Results: MTurk convenience and probability samples showed the same pattern of statistical significance and direction in almost all experiments (21 of 24 analyses did not differ) and observational studies (19 of 25 associations did not differ). Demographic characteristics of the samples differed substantially (1 of 17 estimates did not differ), with the convenience sample being younger, having more years of education, and including more Whites and Asians. Tobacco product use also differed substantially (1 of 22 prevalence estimates did not differ), with the convenience sample reporting more cigarette and e-cigarette use (median error 19%).Conclusions: Using MTurk convenience samples can yield generalizable findings for experiments and observational studies. Prevalence estimates from MTurk convenience samples are likely to be over- or underestimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our randomized trial found that pictorial cigarette pack warnings elicited more quit attempts than text-only warnings.Purpose: In the current study, we sought to identify psychological mechanisms that explain why pictorial cigarette pack warnings change behavior.Methods: In 2014 and 2015, we recruited 2,149 adult smokers in NC and CA, USA. We randomly assigned smokers to receive on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks either a text-only warning (one of the USA's current warnings on the side of cigarette packs) or a pictorial warning (one of the USA's proposed text warnings with pictures on the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs).Results: Pictorial warnings increased attention to, reactions to, and social interactions about cigarette pack warnings (all p < .05). However, pictorial warnings changed almost no belief or attitude measures. Mediators of the impact of pictorial warnings included increased attention, negative affect, social interactions, thinking about the warning and harms of smoking, and intentions to quit (all p < .05). Analyses also found that pictorial warnings led to greater avoidance of the warnings, which was associated with more quit attempts (p < .05).Conclusions: Pictorial warnings increased quit attempts by eliciting aversive reactions and by keeping the message vividly in smokers' minds. Contrary to predictions from several theories of health behavior, the warnings exerted little of their influence through changes in beliefs and attitudes and none of their influence through changes in risk perception. We propose the Tobacco Warnings Model based on these findings.Clinical Trial Information: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02247908; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247908. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cigarette smoke contains at least 93 chemicals or "constituents" that the Food and Drug Administration has identified as harmful and potentially harmful constituents to human health. Our study sought to identify which constituent disclosure message elements are most effective in discouraging people from smoking.Methods: Three hundred eighty eight current smokers aged 18 and older completed an online survey in February 2015. We randomized participants to respond to one of two sets of 13 toxic products that contain cigarette constituents and 25 health effects associated with cigarette constituents.Results: Products that elicited the most discouragement were those with lower chances of exposure (e.g., explosives), followed by products with possible exposure (e.g., rat poison), and products with a high likelihood of exposure (e.g., floor cleaner). Awareness of toxic products that constituents are found in (p < .001) and low exposure products (p < .001) were associated with higher discouragement. Health effects that people had heard are caused by cigarette smoke constituents elicited higher discouragement from smoking cigarettes (p < .001). Cancer was associated with higher discouragement relative to respiratory, cardiovascular, and reproductive health effects (all p < .001).Conclusions: Cigarette smoke constituent messages may be more effective at discouraging smoking if they include information about carcinogenic health effects (e.g., mouth cancer and lung tumors) and low exposure toxic products (e.g., explosives and radioactive material) as message elements.Implications: Our study identified health effects and toxic products, especially cancers and rarely encountered toxic products, that may discourage smoking when included in disclosure messages. By constructing messages that communicate the harms associated with tobacco use by contextualizing those harms in terms of specific constituents, tobacco education messaging efforts may be increasingly successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention for smoking cessation; however, little research has examined changes in the impact of warnings over time, especially shortly following the first exposure to pictorial warnings. We sought to characterize the trajectories of responses to pictorial cigarette pack warnings soon after first exposure.Methods: Participants were 2149 adult smokers in North Carolina and California, United States. In 2014-2015, we randomized smokers to have pictorial (intervention) or text-only (control) warnings on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. Weekly surveys assessed psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.Results: After 1 week, smokers in the intervention arm reported higher levels of most outcomes, compared with the control arm. Over subsequent weeks, smokers in both trial arms had decreases in thinking about the harms of smoking (β = -0.046), positive (β = -0.036), and negative (β = -0.042) smoking reinforcement attitudes, and increases in quit intentions (β = 0.070) and cigarette forgoing (β = 0.137) (all p < .05). Only negative affective reactions decreased more in the intervention versus control condition (pinteraction < .01).Conclusions: The impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time. In contrast, quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase, at least during the initial period after introduction. Rotation of pictorial warnings may help prevent warning wear-out.Implications: Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality and warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention. Prior studies reporting on cigarette pack warning "wear out" have been limited by being short-term single-session experimental studies. Ours are the first study to experimentally examine the trajectories of several outcomes after first exposure and report that the impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time while quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase.Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02247908; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247908. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Social interactions are a key mechanism through which health communication efforts, including pictorial cigarette pack warnings, may exert their effects. We sought to better understand social interactions elicited by pictorial cigarette pack warnings.Methods: A controlled trial randomly assigned US adult smokers (n = 2149) to have their cigarette packs labeled with pictorial or text-only warnings for 4 weeks. Smokers completed surveys during the baseline visit and each of the subsequent 4 weekly visits.Results: Smokers with pictorial warnings on their packs had more conversations throughout the trial compared to those with text-only warnings (8.2 conversations vs 5.0, p<.01). The highest number of conversations occurred during the first week. Smokers with pictorial warnings were more likely than those with text-only warnings to discuss the health effects of smoking, whether the warnings would make them want to quit and whether the warnings would make others want to quit (all p < .05). Smokers were more likely to describe pictorial warnings as scary, gross, or depressing and gloomy during conversations than text-only warnings (all p < .05).Conclusions: Pictorial warnings sparked more conversations about the warnings, the health effects of smoking, and quitting smoking than text-only warnings. These social interactions may extend the reach of pictorial warnings beyond the targeted smoker and may be one of the processes by which pictorial warnings have impact.Implications: Health communication can influence behavior by changing social interactions. Our trial characterized social interactions about pictorial cigarette pack warnings with a large longitudinal sample in a real-world setting. Understanding these conversations can inform the United States and other countries as they improve existing warnings and help tobacco control policy makers and health communication theorists understand how social interactions triggered by warnings affect smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to describe characteristics and psychometric properties of measures used in pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments and provide recommendations for future studies.Methods: Our systematic review identified 68 pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments conducted between 2000 and 2016 in 22 countries. Two independent coders coded all studies on study features, including sample characteristics, theoretical framework, and constructs assessed. We also coded measurement characteristics, including construct, number of items, source, reliability, and validity.Results: We identified 278 measures representing 61 constructs. The most commonly assessed construct categories were warning reactions (62% of studies) and perceived effectiveness (60%). The most commonly used outcomes were affective reactions (35%), perceived likelihood of harm (22%), intention to quit smoking (22%), perceptions that warnings motivate people to quit smoking (18%), and credibility (16%). Only 4 studies assessed smoking behavior. More than half (54%) of all measures were single items. For multi-item measures, studies reported reliability data 68% of the time (mean α = 0.88, range α = 0.68-0.98). Studies reported sources of measures only 33% of the time and rarely reported validity data. Of 68 studies, 37 (54%) mentioned a theory as informing the study.Conclusions: Our review found great variability in constructs and measures used to evaluate the impact of cigarette pack pictorial warnings. Many measures were single items with unknown psychometric properties. Recommendations for future studies include a greater emphasis on theoretical models that inform measurement, use of reliable and validated (preferably multi-item) measures, and better reporting of measure sources.Implications: Robust and consistent measurement is important for building a strong, cumulative evidence base to support pictorial cigarette pack warning policies. This systematic review of experimental studies of pictorial cigarette warnings demonstrates the need for standardized, theory-based measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health warnings may be less effective if they elicit reactance, a motivation to resist a threat to freedom, yet we lack a standard measure of reactance.Purpose: We sought to validate a new health warning reactance scale in the context of pictorial cigarette pack warnings.Methods: A national sample of adults (n = 1413) responded to reactance survey questions while viewing randomly assigned pictorial or text warnings on images of cigarette packs. A separate longitudinal sample of adult smokers received the warnings on their own cigarette packs (n = 46).Results: Factor analyses identified a reliable and valid 27-item Reactance to Health Warnings Scale. In our experimental study, smokers rated pictorial warnings as being able to motivate quitting more than text warnings. However, five reactance scale factors weakened the warnings' impact (anger, exaggeration, government, manipulation, and personal attack; all p < .05).Conclusions: The Reactance to Health Warnings Scale had good psychometric properties. Reactance weakened the impact of pictorial warnings on smokers' evaluation of the warning's ability to motivate quitting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Understanding what people think about harmful and potentially harmful constituents in cigarettes and cigarette smoke has new urgency given legislation requiring US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose constituent information. Our study sought to obtain qualitative information on what people think about these constituents and the language they use to talk about them.Methods: We conducted six focus groups in 2014 with 40 adults in North Carolina. Open-ended questions focused on cigarette and cigarette smoke constituents in general and on the 18 constituents on the FDA's abbreviated list. We coded the transcripts for emergent themes, and all four coders discussed themes until we reached consensus.Results: Participants knew that cigarette smoke contains chemicals but did not know how many chemicals nor what those chemicals are, beyond tar and nicotine. Dangers of constituents mentioned included "chemicals," physical disease, and addiction. Participants incorrectly believed harmful constituents came primarily from tobacco companies' additives. For unfamiliar constituents, people tried to make associations based on similar-sounding words. Recognizable constituents that participants associated with health harms most discouraged them from wanting to smoke. Most participants wanted to know health harms associated with constituents and what else the chemicals were in.Conclusions: Participants showed enthusiasm for learning more information about constituents, and also showed substantial misunderstandings about the source of harmful constituents. Our findings contribute to the limited body of research on adults' knowledge and perceptions of cigarette smoke constituents and can aid the FDA as it plans to disclose constituent information to the public.Implications: Our study provides information about adults' understanding of cigarette smoke constituents and what adults would like to know about these constituents. This information can help communication campaigns describe cigarette smoke constituents in a way that discourages people from wanting to smoke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems that have become increasingly popular in the United States. We sought to understand how U.S. adults hear about e-cigarettes. Methods: A U.S. national sample of 17,522 adults (≥18 years old) completed an online survey in March 2013 assessing their awareness of and sources of information about e-cigarettes. Results: Most respondents (86%) had heard of e-cigarettes. Current and former smokers were more likely to be aware of e-cigarettes than non-smokers. Males, younger adults, non-Hispanic Whites, and those with higher education were also more likely to have heard of e-cigarettes than females, older adults, other races or ethnicities, or those with lower education. The most commonly reported sources of information were another person, ads on television, and seeing e-cigarettes being sold, although the relative frequency of these sources differed for current, former, and never-smokers. Former and current smokers were more likely to have heard about e-cigarettes from e-cigarette users than were never-smokers. Adults age 30 or younger were more likely than adults over age 30 to have heard about e-cigarettes online. Conclusions: Nearly all U.S. adults had heard of e-cigarettes in 2013. By focusing on the most common channels of information, public health campaigns can more efficiently communicate information about e-cigarette safety and consider necessary regulations should companies use these channels for marketing that targets youth, non-tobacco users, and other at-risk groups. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Legislation requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release information to the public about harmful constituents in tobacco and tobacco smoke. To inform these efforts, we sought to better understand how smokers and nonsmokers think about tobacco constituents.Methods: In October 2012, 300 U.S. adults aged 18-66 years completed a cross-sectional Internet survey. The questions focused on 20 harmful tobacco constituents that the FDA has prioritized for communicating with the public.Results: Most participants had heard of 7 tobacco constituents (ammonia, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and nicotine), but few participants had heard of the others (e.g., acrolein). Few participants correctly understood that many constituents were naturally present in tobacco. Substances that companies add to cigarette tobacco discouraged people from wanting to smoke more than substances that naturally occur in cigarette smoke (p < .001). Ammonia, arsenic, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde being in cigarettes elicited the most discouragement from smoking. Constituents elicited greater discouragement from wanting to smoke if respondents were nonsmokers (β = -.34, p < .05), had negative images of smokers (i.e., negative smoker prototypes; β = .19, p < .05), believed constituents are added to tobacco (β = .14, p < .05), or were older (β = .16, p < .05).Conclusions: Our study found low awareness of most tobacco constituents, with greater concern elicited by additives. Efforts to communicate health risks of tobacco constituents should consider focusing on ones that elicited the most discouragement from smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some believe that vaccinating young women against human papillomavirus (HPV) will increase their risky behavior. In more formal terms, vaccination lowers risk perception, and people compensate for their lower perceived risk by reducing other preventive behaviors. Purpose: We test several predictions from the risk compensation hypothesis in the context of vaccination behavior. Methods: We obtained a random sample of adults (N� = �705), interviewing them by phone just as the Lyme disease vaccine first became available to the public and again 18 months later. Analyses controlled for age, sex, education, and race. Results: Vaccinated respondents were less likely to continue engaging in two of five protective behaviors after vaccination. The frequency of these protective behaviors did not dip below that among the unvaccinated respondents. Conclusions: We found some evidence of regression (protective behaviors dropping, after vaccination, to levels reported by the unvaccinated cohort). However, we did not find disinhibition (exceeding the risk taking of the unvaccinated cohort), the greater threat to public health. Although we will not know for several years what effect HPV vaccination has on other behaviors, if any, data on other vaccinations can offer critically important information in the interim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We aimed to identify the role of objective risk status and subjective risk beliefs in influenza vaccination decisions during the recent rationing of influenza vaccine. Method. A random sample of 300 Americans, obtained through random-digit dialing, was interviewed regarding influenza vaccination practices and beliefs in September 2004 and again in March 2005. Results. One-half of individuals at high risk of influenza did not know that they were at high risk and, therefore, were not vaccinated. Respondents at high objective risk were more likely to report having been vaccinated than respondents who were not at high objective risk (36% vs. 6%, respectively; odds ratio, 8.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.65–18.88). However, a more powerful predictor of self-reported vaccination was subjective risk (64% vs. 7%, respectively; odds ratio, 24.02; 95% confidence interval, 12.18–48.09). Subjective risk fully mediated the relationship between objective risk and vaccination. Other predictors of vaccination included physician recommendation, habit, prior vaccination intention, belief that the influenza vaccine is safe and effective, perceived likelihood of getting influenza, and trait neuroticism. Conclusion. Health communication efforts must be more effective in persuading adults with chronic illness and individuals in contact with persons at risk that they should be vaccinated against influenza. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Because risk perceptions can affect protective behavior and protective behavior can affect risk perceptions, the relations between these 2 constructs are complex and incorrect tests often lead to invalid conclusions. Purpose: To discuss and carry out appropriate tests of 3 easily confused hypotheses: (a) the behavior motivation hypothesis (perceptions of personal risk cause people to take protective action), (b) the risk reappraisal hypothesis (when people take actions thought to be effective, they lower their risk perceptions), and (c) the accuracy hypothesis (risk perceptions accurately reflect risk behavior). Methods: Longitudinal study with an initial interview just after the Lyme disease vaccine was made publicly available and a follow-up interview 18 months later. Random sample of adult homeowners (N = 745) in 3 northeastern U.S. counties with high Lyme disease incidence. Lyme disease vaccination behavior and risk perception were assessed. Results: All 3 hypotheses were supported. Participants with higher initial risk perceptions were much more likely than those with tower risk perceptions to get vaccinated against Lyme disease (OK = 5.81, 95% Cl 2.63-12.82, p < .001). Being vaccinated led to a reduction in risk perceptions, χ2(I, N = 745) = 30,90, p < .001. and people vaccinated correctly believed that their risk of future infection was lower than that of people not vaccinated (OR = .44.95% Cl .21-.91, p < .05). Conclusions: The behavior motivation hypothesis was supported in this longitudinal study, but the opposite conclusion (i.e.. that higher risk led to less protective behavior) would have been drawn from an incorrect lest based only on cross-sectional data. Health researchers should take care in formulating and testing risk-perception-behavior hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on a study that showed the efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 vaccine against all HPV-associated genital diseases in young women, such as vulvar and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ and genital warts. The study participants were treated with procedures known to be effective in cervical cancer prevention, which greatly reduced their chances of getting cervical cancer. The authors warn that most randomized controlled trials will not be able to show whether HPV vaccines prevent cervical cancer.