Search

Introduction Cigarette package inserts that describe quitting benefits and tips may promote cessation; however, research is needed to understand better their effects, including potentially enhancing the effects of pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs). Methods A randomized trial with a 2×2 factorial design was conducted with adult smokers (n=356) assigned to either small text-only health warning labels (HWLs; control); inserts with cessation messages, and the small text-only HWLs (insertsonly); large PHWLs (PHWLs-only); both inserts and PHWLs (inserts + PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs labeled to reflect their group. Upon finishing the trial, participants reported their past 14-day frequency of noticing, reading, thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, talking about labels, and forgoing cigarettes because of the labels. Ordered logistic models regressed these outcomes on labeling groups, and mediation analyses assessed whether attention (i.e. noticing, reading) to labels mediated effects of labeling exposure on other outcomes (i.e. thinking about harms/benefits, talking, forgoing). Results The inserts + PHWLs group reported higher frequencies than the control group for all outcomes. Compared to the control group, both the inserts-only and PHWLs-only groups reported higher frequency of noticing (AOR=3.53 and 2.46, respectively) and reading labels (AOR=2.89 and 1.71), thinking about smoking risks because of the labels (AOR=1.93 and 1.82), and talking about labels (AOR=2.30 and 2.70). Participants in the inserts-only group also reported more frequent thinking about quitting benefits (AOR=1.98). Attention mediated all labeling effects except for the contrast between PHWLs only and control. Conclusions Compared to text-only HWLS, cigarette labeling that involves inserts, PHWLs, or both appears more effective at drawing attention to warnings, which mediated the effects on cessation-related psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

BackgroundOn June 24, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion legislation entirely up to states. However, anti-abortion activists and legislators have organized for decades to prevent abortion access through restrictive state-level legislation. In 2019, South Carolina legislators proposed a bill criminalizing abortion after 6 weeks gestation, before most people know they are pregnant. The current study examines the anti-abortion rhetoric used in legislative hearings for this extreme abortion restriction in South Carolina. By examining the arguments used by anti-abortion proponents, we aim to expose their misalignment with public opinion on abortion and demonstrate that their main arguments are not supported by and often are counter to medical and scientific evidence.MethodsWe qualitatively analyzed anti-abortion discourse used during legislative hearings of SC House Bill 3020, The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act. Data came from publicly available videos of legislative hearings between March and November 2019, during which members of the public and legislators testified for and against the abortion ban. After the videos were transcribed, we thematically analyzed the testimonies using a priori and emergent coding.ResultsTestifiers (Anti-abortion proponents) defended the ban using scientific disinformation and by citing advances in science to redefine “life.” A central argument was that a fetal “heartbeat” (i.e., cardiac activity) detected at 6 weeks gestation indicates life. Anti-abortion proponents used this to support their argument that the 6-week ban would “save lives.” Other core strategies compared anti-abortion advocacy to civil rights legislation, vilified supporters and providers of abortion, and framed people who get abortions as victims. Personhood language was used across strategies and was particularly prominent in pseudo-scientific arguments.DiscussionAbortion restrictions are detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people with the potential to become pregnant and to those who are pregnant. Efforts to defeat abortion bans must be grounded in a critical and deep understanding of anti-abortion strategies and tactics. Our results reveal that anti-abortion discourse is extremely inaccurate and harmful. These findings can be useful in developing effective approaches to countering anti-abortion rhetoric.

While many countries require prominent pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) on the outside of cigarette packs to communicate the harms of smoking, there is evidence that cigarette pack inserts that contain efficacy messages may enhance the effectiveness of PHWLs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory authority to communicate with smokers through inserts. While current labeling regulations do not require inclusion of inserts, the FDA could implement them in the future. This study assesses US smokers' perceptions of cigarette package inserts at the conclusion of a two-week randomized trial on cigarette labeling where half of participants were exposed to insert messages (two response-efficacy messages and two self-efficacy messages) in their packs. Participants (n = 359) completed a 30- to 60-min interview with both quantitative and qualitative assessments, including measures of recall and perceived message effectiveness (PME) for specific inserts. Correlates of recall and PME were estimated using mixed-effects regression models. Qualitative responses to PME items were analyzed using thematic analysis. Response-efficacy messages had higher PME and recall than self-efficacy messages. People had diverse responses to the inserts, including that they were positive, thought-provoking, and helpful. Reactions to and perceptions of the inserts indicate potential benefits of integrating efficacy messages into labeling policies.

Objectives: Conversations about pictorial cigarette health warning labels (HWLs) encourage quit attempts, and prior research suggests prevalence of these conversations varies by ethnicity. We assessed the frequency of conversations about text-only HWLs among Latino and non-Latino white smokers and the relationship between conversations and subsequent quit attempts. Methods: Latino and non-Latino white adult smokers in the United States (N = 4403) were surveyed every 4 months over 2 years. Surveys queried smoking behaviors, recent quit attempts, HWL responses, including HWL conversations, and socio-demographic variables. Negative binomial generalized estimating equation (GEE) models regressed the frequency of HWL conversations on study variables. Logistic GEE models regressed quit attempts at follow-up surveys on responses from the prior wave, including frequency of HWL conversations and their interaction with ethnicity. Results: Spanish preference Latinos reported the most HWL conversations (85%), followed by English preference Latinos (59%), and non-Latino Whites (35%). More frequent HWL conversations predicted subsequent quit attempts (AOR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.32, 2.30), but ethnicity did not moderate this effect. Conclusions: Latinos appear to talk more frequently about HWLs than non-Latino Whites but are no more likely to quit as a result. Cessation campaigns should use messages that encourage conversations about quitting.