Search

INTRODUCTION:We reviewed research literature on pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns targeting eight vulnerable populations to determine key findings and research gaps. Results can inform tobacco policy and control efforts and the design of public education campaigns for these groups. METHODS:Five journal databases in medicine, communication, and science, were used to identify 8875 peer-reviewed, original articles in English, published in the period 2004-2018. There were 144 articles that met inclusion criteria on pro-tobacco marketing or anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at eight US groups: women of reproductive age, racial/ethnic minority groups (African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native), Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) populations, groups with low socioeconomic status, rural/inner city residents, military/veterans, and people with mental health or medical co-morbidities. We summarized the number of articles for each population, type of tobacco, and pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus. Narrative summaries were organized by population and by pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus, with key strategies and gaps by group. RESULTS:There were more studies on pro-tobacco marketing rather than anti-tobacco campaigns, and on cigarettes rather than other tobacco products. Major gaps included studies on Asian Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, pregnant women, LGBT populations, and those with mental health or medical co-morbidities. Gaps related to tobacco products were found for hookah, snus, and pipe/roll-your-own tobacco in the pro-tobacco studies, and for all products except cigarettes in anti-tobacco studies. Common tobacco industry methods used were tailoring of product and package design and messages that were used to reach and appeal to different sociodemographic groups. Studies varied by research design making it difficult to compare results. CONCLUSIONS:We found major research gaps for specific groups and tobacco products. Public education campaigns need a stronger foundation in empirical studies focused on these populations. Research and practice would benefit from studies that permit comparisons across studies.

Introduction: This study explores how the emergence of FDA-funded Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research complements and perhaps influenced the direction of tobacco research supported by NIH.Aims and Methods: New NIH- and FDA-funded tobacco projects awarded in fiscal years (FY) 2011-2020 were identified using internal NIH databases of awarded grants. Project abstracts and research aims were coded by the authors to characterize research domains and tobacco products studied.Results: Between FY 2011 and 2020, NIH funded 1032 and FDA funded 322 new tobacco projects. For the years and grant activity codes studied, the number of new NIH tobacco projects declined while FDA's increased; combined the number of new projects held steady. Much of NIH research included smoking combustibles (43.7%). The most common products in FDA research were cigarettes (74.8%) and e-cigarettes/ENDS (48.1%). Most NIH (58.6%) and FDA (67.7%) projects included research on the determinants of tobacco use. Another area of apparent overlap was health effects (29.5% NIH and 30.1% FDA). Projects unique to NIH included treatment interventions (33.3%), disease pathology/progression (17.8%) and neurobiology (18.9%). A minority of both NIH and FDA projects included populations particularly vulnerable to tobacco product use.Conclusions: In total, support for new tobacco research supported by NIH and FDA combined remained steady for the time period covered, though there was a concomitant decline in NIH tobacco projects with the increase in FDA-funded TRS projects for the activity codes studied. Despite the apparent overlap in some areas, both NIH and FDA support research that is unique to their respective missions.Implications: NIH continues to support tobacco research that falls within and outside of FDA's regulatory authorities. This research still is needed not only to bolster the evidence base for regulatory decisions at the national and state levels, but also to advance a comprehensive scientific agenda that can inform multiple levels of influence on tobacco control, use and addiction. It will be important to continue monitoring FDA-funded TRS and NIH-funded tobacco research portfolios to ensure that the level of support for and focus of the research is sufficient to address the burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The science of dissemination and implementation (D&I) is advancing the knowledge base for how best to integrate evidence-based interventions within clinical and community settings and how to recast the nature or conduct of the research itself to make it more relevant and actionable in those settings. While the field is growing, there are only a few training programs for D&I research; this is an important avenue to help build the field’s capacity. To improve the United States’ capacity for D&I research, the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Health Administration collaborated to develop a five-day training institute for postdoctoral level applicants aspiring to advance this science. Methods We describe the background, goals, structure, curriculum, application process, trainee evaluation, and future plans for the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH). Results The TIDIRH used a five-day residential immersion to maximize opportunities for trainees and faculty to interact. The train-the-trainer-like approach was intended to equip participants with materials that they could readily take back to their home institutions to increase interest and further investment in D&I. The TIDIRH curriculum included a balance of structured large group discussions and interactive small group sessions. Thirty-five of 266 applicants for the first annual training institute were accepted from a variety of disciplines, including psychology (12 trainees); medicine (6 trainees); epidemiology (5 trainees); health behavior/health education (4 trainees); and 1 trainee each from education & human development, health policy and management, health services research, public health studies, public policy and social work, with a maximum of two individuals from any one institution. The institute was rated as very helpful by attendees, and by six months after the institute, a follow-up survey (97% return rate) revealed that 72% had initiated a new grant proposal in D&I research; 28% had received funding, and 77% had used skills from TIDIRH to influence their peers from different disciplines about D&I research through building local research networks, organizing formal presentations and symposia, teaching and by leading interdisciplinary teams to conduct D&I research. Conclusions The initial TIDIRH training was judged successful by trainee evaluation at the conclusion of the week’s training and six-month follow-up, and plans are to continue and possibly expand the TIDIRH in coming years. Strengths are seen as the residential format, quality of the faculty and their flexibility in adjusting content to meet trainee needs, and the highlighting of concrete D&I examples by the local host institution, which rotates annually. Lessons learned and plans for future TIDIRH trainings are summarized.

In 1985, THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI) established a set of quantified objectives for a reduction in cancer mortality by the year 2000. NCI officials estimated that a decrease in […]

Objectives: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 granted the US Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products via the establishment of the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). To inform regulatory activities, a new research field -tobacco regulatory science (TRS) - has developed. This evaluation describes the contribution of CTP-funded research to the development of TRS. Methods: We reviewed multiple data sources, including the CTP-funded research portfolio, databases of publications stemming from CTP-funded research, presentations of CTP-funded research, researcher contributions to regulatory activities, and surveys of trainees on National Institutes of Health TRS grants. Results: Using data from awards funded from 2010 to 2017, we describe the research domains, tobacco products, and specific topic areas of the funded research. We document the growth in dissemination of TRS-related information through publications and presentations, and use of the research to inform CTP decision-making and related activities. We discuss the support provided to engage and develop a new cadre of TRS researchers. Conclusions: The field of TRS is relatively new. This evaluation demonstrates that a rich body of research exists to inform tobacco regulatory activities at the national level and to expand the overall the tobacco knowledge base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives (NH AI/AN) have the highest commercial tobacco use (CTU) among U.S. racial/ethnic groups. Tobacco marketing is a risk factor, however few studies examine it among NH AI/AN. Objective: We identified prevalence of tobacco industry marketing exposure and correlates of CTU among NH AI/AN compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Methods: Data were from wave 1 (2013–2014; N = 32,320) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, analyzing self-reported exposure to tobacco ads from stores, tobacco package displays, direct mail and email marketing. Correlates of CTU were identified and interactions between racial/ethnic groups and tobacco marketing were assessed. Results: NH AI/AN (n = 955) had a higher prevalence of exposure to retail tobacco ads (64.5% vs 59.3%; p < 0.05), mail (20.2% vs.14.3%; p < 0.001) and email (17.0% vs.10.6%; p < 0.001) marketing than NH Whites (n = 19,297). Adjusting for tobacco use and related risk factors, exposure to email marketing remained higher among NH AI/AN than NH Whites. Interactions between racial/ethnic groups and marketing exposures on CTU were nonsignificant. CTU was higher among NH AI/AN than NH Whites and among adults who reported exposure to tobacco ads, mail, and email marketing. Conclusions/importance: There is higher tobacco marketing exposure in stores and via mail for NH AI/AN. Email marketing exposure was higher, even after controlling for tobacco-related risk factors. The tobacco industry may be targeting NH AI/AN through emails, which include coupons and other marketing promotions. Culturally relevant strategies that counter-act tobacco industry direct marketing tactics are needed to reduce disparities in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]