Search

The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of specially designed educational materials to correct misperceptions held by smokers about nicotine, nicotine medications, low tar cigarettes, filters and product ingredients. To accomplish this, 682 New York State Smokers' Quitline callers were randomized to one of two groups: control group received counseling, nicotine patches and quit smoking guide; and experimental group received counseling, nicotine patches, quit guide, plus information about cigarette characteristics mailed in a brand-tailored box. Participants were contacted 1 month later to assess knowledge about cigarettes and actions taken to alter smoking behavior. The results found that respondents in the experimental condition were more likely to report using and sharing the test materials with others compared with the control condition. Overall mean knowledge scores for the experimental group were slightly higher compared with those who received the standard materials. Knowledge of cigarette ingredients was not related to quit attempts or quitting smoking. This study found that the experimental materials were better recalled and contributed to higher levels of knowledge about specific cigarette design features; however, this did not translate into changes in smoking behavior. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.)

In May 2020, New York State restricted the sale of flavored e-liquids, excluding tobacco flavor. We conducted a Web-based survey to assess support and changes in use behavior between July and October 2020 (n = 946), with a follow-up between April and June 2021 (n = 542). Most electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users (n = 82/55) continued to use, with 39%/33% reporting continuing to purchase flavored e-liquids, 20%/32% reporting using tobacco flavor, 5%/6% reporting quitting ENDS and smoking cigarettes, and 8%/3% reporting quitting ENDS and not smoking cigarettes. In 2020, 65% of non-users, 53% of cigarette users, 34% of cigarette/ENDS users, and 18% of ENDS users supported this policy restriction on e-liquids. Similar results were observed in 2021. Many ENDS users continued purchasing flavored e-liquids, suggesting that compliance with the policy can be improved. Cigarette smoking did not appear to increase. Continued evaluation of how restrictions on sales of products influence use is critical to understanding the long-term impact on behavior., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Significance: Reducing youth e-cigarette use is a New York State (NYS) public health priority. In May 2020, a state-wide restriction on flavoured e-cigarettes, except tobacco flavour, was passed. This study examines changes in nicotine product use behaviour among youth around the time of the state-wide vaping flavour restriction., Methods: NYS data from the US International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Youth Tobacco and E-cigarette Tobacco and Vaping Survey were analysed cross-sectionally from February 2020 (n=955), August 2020 (n=946), February 2021 (n=1030) and August 2021 (n=753). Online surveys were conducted among youth 16-19 years. Weighted descriptive statistics and regression models were used to describe changes in nicotine product use behaviour. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity and perceived family socioeconomic status., Results: Significant decreases in past 30-day e-cigarette use (20%-11%), cigarette (7%-4%), and dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes (5%-2%) were observed over the 2-year period in NYS. Over 95% of vapers still reported using a non-tobacco-flavoured e-cigarette following the restriction, with fruit-flavoured being the most popular at each time point., Conclusions: Nearly all NYS youth continued to vape flavours that were restricted in NYS. While youth past 30-day vaping prevalence decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021, increased flavour restriction compliance could result in an even greater decrease. Continuous monitoring is important to better understand perceptions, use patterns and access at the individual level, retail level and population level to inform future enforcement and restrictions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare that they do not have competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this presentation. DH has served as an expert witness on behalf of governments in litigation involving the tobacco industry., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective We assessed whether in-depth messaging delivered via a smoking cessation quitline results in participants: (1) speaking to their physician, or (2) insurance company regarding lung cancer screening (LCS). MethodsEligible participants lived in New York State and met the United States Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for LCS (N = 1000). A randomized trial was conducted among New York State Smokers' Quitline participants to assess the impact of a brochure containing information on risks, benefits, and costs associated with LCS (control group) versus the brochure supplemented with phone-based in-depth messaging (treatment group). ResultsAfter a 4-month telephone survey (N = 431), associations between the study groups were examined for: (1) speaking with a physician regarding LCS, and (2) speaking with an insurance company about LCS coverage. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, insurance status, emphysema/COPD, and past 30-day cigarette use found no significant associations. However, sensitivity analyses among control participants found significant associations, including for speaking with a physician (p < .05) by receipt of the study brochure. Analyses repeated in the treatment group also had statistically significant findings emerge, including for speaking with insurance company (p < .05). ConclusionsThe educational brochure may be an effective and low-cost way to deliver information about LCS.

Background: Limited data exist on what young adults report as their first-ever nicotine product; some evidence suggests that they report hookah as their first product smoked., Objectives: This study reports on the first nicotine product used among undergraduates who had ever tried tobacco, and explores correlates of hookah as that first product., Methods: Participants included a convenience sample of undergraduate students (n = 1538) at four universities in upstate New York during fall 2013. Descriptive statistics assessed first nicotine product used and prevalence of current use. Logistic regression was used to examine correlates of hookah as the first nicotine product used., Results: Among the 832 students who reported ever use of any nicotine product, 25.4% reported hookah as their first product smoked; only combustible cigarettes (39.5%) were reported more frequently. Among students who ever smoked cigarettes, most reported cigarettes as their introductory product. Among students who never smoked cigarettes, nearly half reported hookah as their introductory product. Among ever nicotine users, current hookah smoking was common (34.9%), and greater than current e-cigarette (25.9%) and current combustible cigarette (26.4%) use. Never users of cigarettes, females, and non-Hispanic African Americans, had higher adjusted odds of reporting hookah as their introductory product., Conclusions: The results of this study have implications for the identification of risk factors for tobacco initiation, the assessment of tobacco use patterns and behaviors, and the tailoring of tobacco prevention initiatives among youth. Our findings suggest that broadening prevention efforts beyond a focus on combustible cigarettes may be warranted.

Context: Cancer patients' continued tobacco use results in poorer therapeutic outcomes including decreased quality of life and survival., Objective: To assess reach and impact of a free, opt-out, telephone-based tobacco cessation program for thoracic cancer center patients., Design: Observational study., Setting: Comprehensive Cancer Center in Western New York., Participants: Current or recent (within past 30 days) tobacco-using thoracic cancer center patients referred to a tobacco cessation support service between October 2010 and October 2012 at a Comprehensive Cancer Center (n = 942/1313 referrals were eligible for cessation support)., Intervention: A free, opt-out, telephone-based cessation service that was implemented as standard of care. Cessation specialists had patient-guided conversations that assessed readiness to quit; methods used in the past provided cessation strategies and worked to set up a quit date. There was an average of 35.9 days between referral and first contact., Main Outcome Measures: Program reach (referral and participation rates) and impact (as self-reported cessation outcomes measured twice after referral)., Results: Of 942 patients, 730 (77.5%) referred to and called by a tobacco cessation service participated in at least 1 cessation support call, of which 440 of 730 (60.3%) were called for follow-up and 89.5% (394/440) participated. In total, 20.2% (69/342) of current smokers at referral reported at least 7-day abstinence at follow-up. Among current smokers at referral and first contact, being married (odds ratio [OR] = 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-4.18) and having a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (OR = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.58-10.39) were associated with quitting at follow-up, after controlling for demographic, clinical, and health behavior characteristics., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that 78% of thoracic cancer center patients, if contacted, participated at least once in this cessation support service; for current smokers at referral and first contact, being married and having a lower ECOG performance score were associated with self-reported quitting at follow-up. Other organizations may find our results useful while implementing a systematic way to identify tobacco-using patients as part of routine care and to improve available cessation support services.

Background: In the U.S., limited evidence exists on the impact of colors and brand imagery used in cigarette pack design., Purpose: This study examined the impact of pack design, product descriptors, and health warnings on risk perception and brand appeal., Methods: A cross-sectional mall-intercept study was conducted with 197 adult smokers and 200 nonsmokers in Buffalo NY from June to July 2009 (data analysis from July 2009 to December 2010). Participants were shown 12 sets of packs randomly; each set varied by a particular design feature (color, descriptor) or warning label style (text versus graphic, size, attribution, message framing). Packs were rated on criteria including risk perceptions, quit motivation, and purchase interest., Results: Participants selected larger, pictorial, and loss-framed warning labels as more likely to attract attention, encourage thoughts about health risks, motivate quitting, and be most effective. Participants were more likely to select packs with lighter color shading and descriptors such as light, silver, and smooth as delivering less tar, smoother taste, and lower health risk, compared to darker-shaded or full-flavor packs. Additionally, participants were more likely to select the branded compared to plain white pack when asked which delivered the most tar, smoothest taste, was more attractive, appealed to youth aged <18 years, and contained cigarettes of better quality., Conclusions: The findings support larger, graphic health warnings that convey loss-framed messages as most effective in communicating health risks to U.S. adults. The results also indicate that color and product descriptors are associated with false beliefs about risks. Plain packaging may reduce many of the erroneous misperceptions of risk communicated through pack design features., (Copyright © 2011 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)