Search

Introduction Current measures of vaping behaviors in the U.S. do not distinguish what substances participants are vaping and to what extent they are dual-vaping nicotine and cannabis. This study describes the use of new survey questions that more specifically ask whether participants who vape are vaping nicotine, cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD), or another substance. Aims and Methods Adults, who reported any past 30-day tobacco use, from five New England states participated in an online survey from April 2021 to July 2022. Participants who vaped were asked, "Have you used any of the following vape substances in the past 30 days?" with the possible responses of nicotine, cannabis, CBD, other, and "don't know." Dual use of both nicotine and cannabis was defined as the vaping of both nicotine and cannabis and/or CBD in the past 30 days, operationalized as a dichotomous outcome. Data were collected in monthly, repeated cross-sectional waves. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine correlates of dual-vaping. Results The analytic sample included 1547 adults who reported past 30-day tobacco use (mean age 42.9 years, 62.8% female, 85.4% White, 48.5% income of less than $50 000). Over one-quarter (26.1%) reported dual-vaping in the past 30 days. Identifying as male (p  = .002) and self-rated anxiety (p  = .043) were associated with a higher odds of dual-vaping. Conclusions Our findings show that a sizable proportion of a sample of New England adults who have used tobacco in the past 30 days are dual-vaping nicotine and cannabis. Adequate survey measures for assessing the vaping of multiple substances can help in better screening and characterization of health behaviors around dual-use. Implications This study addresses a key gap in adequate survey measures for assessing vaping of multiple substances. We found that among adults with past 30-day tobacco use, dual-vaping was prevalent and associated with different correlates, such as self-reported anxiety and education level, compared to sole-vaping of nicotine or cannabis. Our findings may help in characterizing and targeting future population-level surveillance and intervention efforts for multiple substance use behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The spread of health misinformation poses a threat to public health as it can influence individuals’ health beliefs and, potentially, behaviors, and their support for public health policies. The mainstream news media have the potential to inadvertently increase the salience of misinformation through their reporting. This study explores the agenda-setting effects of mainstream news media coverage on public salience of public health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed the association between news media coverage and public salience – as measured by Google Trends relative search volume – of three different pieces of COVID-19 misinformation: (1) hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19; (2) the COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility; and (3) ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. We plotted news coverage of each piece of misinformation against Google Trends relative search volume over time. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were used to account for autocorrelation and analyze the relationship between the two time series. News media coverage volume was a significant predictor of same-day relative search volume for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The relationship between news media coverage and searches for COVID-19 vaccines and infertility was not significant. These findings indicate mainstream news media coverage may contribute to the public salience of misinformation. Mainstream media outlets should contextualize their reporting on misinformation with verification from scientific consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Massachusetts legislature passed An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control in November 2019 to restrict retail sales of flavored commercially manufactured tobacco products including menthol products, increase penalties for violating the law's provisions, and provide health insurance coverage for tobacco treatment. Aims and Methods: This study explores key informants' perceptions of intended and unintended impacts of implementation of the 2019 Massachusetts statewide law through a health equity and racial justice lens. We conducted in-depth interviews with 25 key informants from three key informant groups (public health officials and advocates, clinicians, and school staff) between March 2021 and April 2022. Using deductive codes on unintended impacts of the implementation of the law's policies, we conducted a focused analysis to identify impacts that were perceived and observed by informants from different key informant groups. Results: Perceived or observed impacts of the law were identified across multiple levels by key informants and included concerns related to three broad themes: 1) intended impacts on health equity and racial justice, 2) ongoing availability of restricted products undermining the intended impact of the law, and 3) inequitable targeting by the policies and enforcement among communities of color. Conclusions: Future evaluation is needed to assess the intended and unintended impacts of implementation of the Massachusetts law to maximize the potential of the policies to reduce tobacco-related health disparities. We discuss implications and recommendations for achieving a national policy and equitable enforcement of flavored tobacco sales restrictions. Implications: This qualitative study among 25 key informants including public health and tobacco control advocates, clinicians, and school staff obtained perspectives of intended and unintended health equity and racial justice impacts of the 2019 Massachusetts An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control. Findings and recommendations from this study can inform monitoring efforts to assess the law's impacts in Massachusetts and the adoption of similar flavored tobacco sales restrictions and other tobacco control policies in other states to maximize the health equity benefits and minimize unintended impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Exposure to certain features in commercial e-cigarette ads may influence e-cigarette use perceptions. This study explored the reactions toward common features in e-cigarette ads among young adults of various tobacco-use behaviors. Aims and Methods We used data from in-depth interviews with U.S. young adults (ages 18–29) who do not use tobacco (n = 26) and who currently smoke cigarettes (n = 26). Participants viewed 30 print e-cigarette ads that included multiple features (eg, fruit flavors, price promotions, smoker-targeted messages) before discussing their perceived influence of memorable ad features. We used reflective thematic analysis to analyze interview data. Results Participants from both groups generally noticed fruit and multiple flavors displayed in the ads, which were seen as appealing and were reported to generate product-use interest because of bright colors, sensory appeal, and a variety of flavor options. Participants who smoke perceived price promotions and positive experience testimonials to be appealing, and some reported this generated use interest. Participants from both groups perceived smoker-targeted messages to be unconvincing, and reported this dampened ad and product appeal and use interest. Participants who do not use tobacco perceived nicotine warnings to be unappealing, resulting in reduced perceived appeal of other attractive features (eg, fruit flavors) appearing in the same ads. Conclusions Marketing features appearing in e-cigarette ads may be perceived by young adults of various tobacco-use behaviors in both similar and different ways. Communication and policy strategies that account for these differential perceptions towards various marketing features are needed to reduce the negative impact of e-cigarette marketing. Implications This study revealed evidence related to young adults' reactions to and perceived influence of commonly used marketing features (eg, fruit flavors, nicotine warnings, price promotions, smoker-targeted messages) in commercial e-cigarette ads. The results highlight the similar and differential perceived appeal and use interest of e-cigarette products promoted with various marketing features among young adults of different tobacco-use behaviors. The results have implications for informing the design of communication strategies and policies related to e-cigarette marketing aimed at promoting complete product switching among young adults who smoke while simultaneously deterring e-cigarette use interest among those who do not use tobacco. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the need for changes in the policies and procedures of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) and its academic journal, Nicotine & Tobacco Research (N&TR). The authors, members of the Health Equity Network (HEN), call for updated definitions of the "tobacco and nicotine industry" to include all entities involved in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of commercial nicotine and tobacco products. They also propose prohibiting individuals receiving financial support from the industry from participating in SRNT activities and excluding them from the publication process at N&TR. The authors argue that industry-funded research undermines the integrity of the field and that the tobacco industry has a history of manipulating scientific discourse. They call on SRNT and N&TR to actively reject industry influence and become an anti-racist organization. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the perceived impact of three pre-conference workshops hosted by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Health Equity Network (HEN) on attendees' professional development. The workshops aimed to provide researchers with support and knowledge to address tobacco-related disparities. Feedback from workshop attendees highlighted the workshops' instrumental role in professional development, providing support for tobacco-related scholarship, and fostering collaborations. However, there is a need to increase awareness and attendance at these workshops, particularly among underrepresented researchers. The article suggests targeted efforts and funding to support attendance and create additional opportunities for collaboration. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: To eliminate tobacco-related disparities, tobacco control research would benefit from a paradigm shift. Intersectionality, a framework pioneered by Kimberlé Crenshaw in late 1980s, has the potential to improve our understanding of why and how certain social groups are disproportionately harmed by commercial tobacco use, and improve our ability to address persistent tobacco-related health disparities.Aims and Methods: In this commentary, we outline the rationale and recommendations for incorporating intersectionality into equity-minded tobacco control research. These recommendations arose from intersectionality webinars organized by the Health Disparities (now Health Equity) Network of the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco (SRNT) in 2019 and 2020.Results: Specifically, we propose that eliminating tobacco-related disparities through intersectionality-informed research requires a multilevel, multipronged approach. We summarize priority actions for the tobacco control research field to achieve health equity through the intersectionality framework including acknowledging that structural factors, racism and power dynamics shape lived experiences, integrating critical theoretical frameworks and intersectionality scholarship into research questions, and embracing collaborative community-based approaches at every level of the research process.Conclusions: Through these actions, our field can take concrete steps to fundamentally improve our approach to conducting research to achieve health equity.Implications: Intersectionality is a valuable tool to align our field with our pursuit of health equity. The recommendations aim to improve methods of equity-focused tobacco control, prompt ongoing dialogue on the utility of this tool, and shift paradigms in how the research process is conducted at every level among stakeholders, including researchers, journal editors and reviewers, funders, practitioners, and policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]