Search

This study examines the effects of different cigarette package warnings in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom up to 5 years post-implementation. The data came from the International Tobacco Control Surveys. Measures included salience of warnings, cognitive responses, forgoing cigarettes and avoiding warnings. Although salience of the UK warnings was higher than the Australian and Canadian pictorial warnings, this did not lead to greater levels of cognitive reactions, forgoing or avoiding. There was no difference in ratings between the Australian and UK warnings for cognitive responses and forgoing, but the Canadian warnings were responded to more strongly. Avoidance of the Australian warnings was greater than to UK ones, but less than to the Canadian warnings. The impact of warnings declined over time in all three countries. Declines were comparable between Australia and the United Kingdom on all measures except avoiding, where Australia had a greater rate of decline; and for salience where the decline was slower in Canada. Having two rotating sets of warnings does not appear to reduce wear-out over a single set of warnings. Warning size may be more important than warning type in preventing wear-out, although both probably contribute interactively.

The aim of the present study was to assess smokers' level of agreement with smoking-related risks and toxic tobacco constituents relative to inclusion of these topics on health warning labels (HWLs). 1000 adult smokers were interviewed between 2012 and 2013 from online consumer panels of adult smokers from each of the three countries: Australia (AU), Canada (CA) and Mexico (MX). Generalized estimating equation models were estimated to compare agreement with smoking-related risks and toxic tobacco constituents. For disease outcomes described on HWLs across all three countries, there were few statistical differences in agreement with health outcomes (e.g. emphysema and heart attack). By contrast, increases in agreement where the HWLs were revised or introduced on HWLs for the first time (e.g. blindness in AU and CA, bladder cancer in CA). Similarly, samples from countries that have specific health content or toxic constituents on HWLs showed higher agreement for that particular disease or toxin than countries without (e.g. higher agreement for gangrene and blindness in AU, higher agreement for bladder cancer and all toxic constituents except nitrosamines and radioactive polonium in CA). Pictorial HWL content is associated with greater awareness of smoking-related risks and toxic tobacco constituents.

Introduction Understanding the characteristics of premium cigar use patterns is essential for minimizing public health harms. Typically, premium cigars are handmade, larger, more expensive, and without the characterizing flavors that are present in other cigar types: Nonpremium traditional cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars. Aims and Methods Self-reported brand and price data were used from Wave 6 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study to define and estimate premium versus nonpremium cigar use among U.S. adults, as well as to explore cigar smoking patterns, purchasing behavior, and reasons for use by cigar type. Results In 2021, 0.9% (95% CI = 0.7–1.0) of adults were premium cigar users, compared to 0.4% of nonpremium traditional cigar users (95% CI = 0.3–0.5), 1.1% of cigarillo users (95% CI = 1.0–1.2), and 0.6% filtered cigar users (95% CI = 0.5–0.7). Premium cigar users were overwhelmingly male (97.7%), and 35.8% were aged ≥55 years. The average premium cigar price/stick was $8.67, $5.50–7.00 more than other cigar types. Compared to other cigar types, significantly fewer premium cigar users had a regular brand with a flavor other than tobacco (~15% vs. 38%–53%). Though flavors remained the top reason for premium cigar use, they were less likely to endorse flavors as a reason for use than other cigar users (~40% vs. 68–74%). Premium cigar users had a lower prevalence (aRR: 0.37, 95% CI = 0.25–0.55) of dual use of cigars and cigarettes. Conclusions Although <1% of U.S. adults use premium cigars, their use and purchasing characteristics continue to differ from other cigar types, highlighting the importance of capturing data specific to premium cigar use. Implications This manuscript extends previous research from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, "Premium cigars: Patterns of use, marketing, and health effects" by utilizing the most recent PATH Study data (Wave 6) to examine patterns of cigar use, including purchasing behavior and reasons for use, by cigar type (eg, premium traditional cigars, nonpremium traditional cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars). The findings support continued research on patterns of premium cigar use, which differ from use patterns of other cigar types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Few eligible patients receive lung cancer screening. We developed the Lung AIR (awareness, information, and resources) intervention to increase community education regarding lung cancer screening. The intervention was designed as an in-person group intervention; however, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adapting the mode of delivery. In this study we examined intervention feasibility and efficacy overall and by mode of delivery (in-person group vs. one-on-one phone) to understand the impact of adapting community outreach and engagement strategies. Feasibility was examined through participant demographics. Efficacy was measured through pre/post knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening, and intention to complete screening. We reached N = 292 participants. Forty percent had a household income below $35,000, 58% had a high school degree or less, 40% were Hispanic, 57% were Black, and 84% reported current or past smoking. One-on-one phone sessions reached participants who were older, had lower incomes, more current smoking, smoked for more years, more cigarettes per day, lower pre-intervention lung cancer screening knowledge, and higher pre-intervention fear and worry. Overall pre/post test scores show significant increases in knowledge, salience, and coherence, and reduced fear and worry. Participants in the one-on-one phone sessions had significantly higher increases in salience and coherence and intention to complete screening compared to participants in the in-person group sessions. The Lung AIR intervention is a feasible and effective community-based educational intervention for lung cancer screening. Findings point to differences in reach and efficacy of the community-based intervention by mode of delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION In March 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized new pictorial health warnings (PHWs), covering 50% of the front and back of the pack; however, legal challenges from cigarette manufacturers have prevented the new warnings from being implemented. About 70% of adults in the general US population support PHWs. This study assessed support for PHWs in 2016, 2018 and 2020 among US adults (aged ≥18 years) who currently smoke or formerly smoked cigarettes. We also assessed factors related to support. METHODS Respondents included adults who currently or formerly smoked cigarettes and participated in at least one wave of the US ITC Smoking and Vaping Surveys: Wave 1 (2016, n=2557); Wave 2 (2018, n=2685); and Wave 3 (2020, n=1112). We assessed changes in support for PHWs between 2016 and 2020, and assessed factors related to support (support vs oppose/don't know). Analyses were conducted on weighted data. RESULTS Overall, 38.0% of respondents supported PHWs in 2016, with a significant increase to 44.7% in 2018 (p<0.001), and leveling off to 45.0% in 2020 (2018 vs 2020, p=0.91). Support was highest among former smokers and lowest among daily smokers in all three survey years. Support for PHWs at all survey years was significantly higher among those who formerly smoked, were younger (aged 18-39 vs ≥40 years), those who identified as Black (vs White), and planned to quit smoking (vs not planning to quit). There were no differences by income level, education level, or sex. CONCLUSIONS Nearly half of US adults who smoke cigarettes or quit smoking supported PHWs in 2020, with support being higher among younger adults, ethnic minorities, and those who formerly smoked. Support increased between 2016 and 2018, but not between 2018 and 2020. Similar to other studies, fewer current and former smokers supported PHWs compared to the US adult general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction This study examines predictors of trajectories of cigarette and e-cigarette use among a cohort of US adolescents transitioning into young adulthood. Comparing trajectories of each tobacco product is important to determine if different intervention targets are needed to prevent progression to daily use. Methods Latent trajectory class analyses identified cigarette and e-cigarette use (never, ever excluding past 12-month, past 12-month (excluding past 30-day (P30D)), P30D 1–5 days, P30D 6+ days) trajectory classes, separately, among US youth (12–17; N = 10,086) using the first 4 waves (2013–2017) of data from the nationally representative PATH Study. Weighted descriptive analyses described the class characteristics. Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses examined demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral predictors of class membership. Results Younger adolescents 12–15 years had lower tobacco use compared to 16–17 year olds and less stable classes. In the 16–17 year group, there were five unique trajectories of cigarette smoking, including a Persistent High Frequency class. Four e-cigarette use trajectories were identified; but not a persistent use class. Shared predictors of class membership for cigarettes and e-cigarettes included mental health problems, other tobacco use, marijuana use, and poorer academic achievement. Male sex and household tobacco use were unique e-cigarette trajectory class predictors. Conclusions There was no evidence that initiation with e-cigarettes as the first product tried was associated with cigarette progression (nor cigarettes as first product and e-cigarette progression). Interventions should focus on well-established risk factors such as mental health and other substance use to prevent progression of use for both tobacco products. Implications Using nationally representative data and definitions of use that take into account frequency and recency of use, longitudinal 4-year trajectories of e-cigarette and cigarette use among US adolescents transitioning into young adulthood were identified. Results among 16–17-year olds revealed a class of persistent high frequency cigarette smoking that was not identified for e-cigarette use. Cigarette use progression was not associated with e-cigarettes as the first product tried. Risk factors for progression of use of both products included mental health and other substance use, which are important prevention targets for both tobacco products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and tobacco products are associated with the initiation and progression of tobacco use. With recent restrictions around flavored products, it is critical to measure both the product and the flavor being used. The Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) Flavored Tobacco Products Measurement Subcommittee (FTPMS) was established to develop core measures to assess flavored tobacco and ENDS product usage, facilitate data harmonization, replicability, and comparisons across studies.Aims and Methods: The FTPMS used a mixed-method approach to inform the development of recommended measures (first use, current use, reasons for use) to assess tobacco and ENDS product flavors. This included reviewing existing surveys, identifying priority areas, developing new measures, cognitive testing, and finalization of recommended measures.Results: Recommended measures were selected from national surveys (e.g. PATH study) and survey items used in TCORS studies to evaluate first use, current use, and reasons for use of tobacco and ENDS products. Response options were expanded for questions about specific flavors and adapted to allow for assessments relevant to recent federal policies. Supplemental measures were developed for researchers conducting more in-depth research around flavored products.Conclusions: Using an expert consensus process supplemented with cognitive testing, the FTPMS developed recommendations for core and supplemental measures for flavored tobacco and ENDS products. Harmonizing data on these factors for flavored tobacco and ENDS products are critical for researchers and may provide actionable evidence to federal, state, and local regulators and policymakers, as well as support evaluations of policies restricting flavors in these products.Implications: The development of core measures to assess first use, current use, and reasons for use of flavored tobacco and ENDS products will facilitate data harmonization, replicability, and comparisons across studies conducted in different samples or across communities with varying levels of regulation for these products. Use of these standardized measures will allow for a greater understanding of the role of flavors and helps to build a more robust evidence base to inform regulatory decisions to reduce tobacco and ENDS use at the population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]