Youths' Perceptions of Nicotine Harm and Associations With Product Use.

INTRODUCTION: Although nicotine is the main addictive substance in tobacco, tobacco combustion is responsible for most tobacco-related diseases. U.S. adults hold misperceptions about nicotine harm. However, little is known about youth nicotine perceptions. AIMS AND METHODS: To address this gap, we assessed U.S. youths' nicotine perceptions and how these perceptions relate to tobacco use. Participants were youth (ages 12-17) in waves 4 (w4; December 2016-January 2018; N = 14 798) and 4.5 (w4.5; December 2017-December 2018; N = 12 918) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study. We describe beliefs about nicotine; perceptions of the nicotine harm in cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); and demographic differences. Regressions assess whether w4 nicotine perceptions predicted w4.5 tobacco use. RESULTS: Most youth correctly responded that nicotine is the main cause of addiction (77.1%) but incorrectly responded that nicotine is the main substance that causes smoking-related cancer (74.7%). Youth distinguished between the harm of nicotine in different products, and on average rated the nicotine in cigarettes as most harmful, followed by e-cigarettes and NRT. Among youth who did not use at w4, greater harm perceptions of nicotine in cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and NRT were associated with lower likelihood of reporting current tobacco use at w4.5. Among youth who currently used cigarettes or e-cigarettes at wave 4, nicotine perceptions did not predict switching to e-cigarettes or cigarettes, respectively, at wave 4.5. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the challenge of developing effective and comprehensive communication strategies that accurately convey the effects of nicotine without encouraging tobacco use. IMPLICATIONS: Many U.S. adults have misperceptions about nicotine, incorrectly believing it is the substance that causes most smoking-related cancers; studies have not assessed youth's perceptions of nicotine and how these perceptions relate to tobacco use. This study found that similar to adults, most youth incorrectly believed nicotine is the main substance that causes smoking-related cancer; youth also distinguish between the harmfulness of nicotine in different products, and rated the nicotine in cigarettes as most harmful, followed by e-cigarettes and NRT. Perceptions of the harm in different nicotine and tobacco products negatively predicted becoming a person who used tobacco a year later, but did not predict switching between e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Findings highlight the challenges of accurately communicating about the harms of nicotine without encouraging tobacco use; findings can be considered in the context of FDA's potential nicotine product standard that would lower nicotine levels in combustible tobacco products to a minimally or nonaddictive level.

Developing and Validating Measures of Absolute and Relative E-Cigarette Product Risk Perceptions: Single Items Can Be Surprisingly Comprehensive.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco risk perceptions are important predictors of behavior and are impacted by tobacco communications. Our systematic literature review (completed in 2018) found there were no measures of e-cigarette risk perceptions that were completely consistent with tobacco researcher recommendations (eg, specifying use frequency) and had demonstrated validity and reliability. The current study develops measures to assess specific risk perceptions, including absolute risks and risks compared with cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, and all nicotine cessation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We generated a list of tobacco health effects based on our previous systematic review of tobacco risk perception measures. Based on health effects prioritized by regulatory science experts, we developed 63 items to assess seven types of e-cigarette risk perceptions: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to all nicotine cessation. We fielded these items in an online survey (N = 1642). Through reliability and validity analyses, we reduced this pool to 21 items, including many single-item measures. Supporting the measures' validity, each measure was negatively associated with current e-cigarette use, e-cigarette intentions, and skepticism about e-cigarette harms; and positively associated with perceiving e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes and intentions to quit e-cigarettes. DISCUSSION: This study developed and validated brief measures of several types of e-cigarette risk perceptions. Surprisingly, we found that for many types of risk perceptions, multi-item measures were redundant and these perceptions were well-represented by single-item measures. IMPLICATIONS: This study developed measures of seven types of e-cigarette health risk perceptions, including absolute health and addiction risk, and risk relative to cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, and cessation. We reduced 63 items to 21 to measure all of these constructs. These measures follow tobacco researcher recommendations, were developed using a rigorous measures development process, and demonstrated some aspects of reliability and validity. Because these measures are publicly available, they can be used by public health and industry researchers.

Absolute and Relative Smokeless Tobacco Product Risk Perceptions: Developing and Validating New Measures that are Up-to-Snuff.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco risk perceptions impact behavior. Our 2018 systematic review of tobacco risk perception measures found no measures of smokeless tobacco (ST) risk perceptions with demonstrated validity and complete consistency with tobacco researcher recommendations (e.g. specifying use frequency). This study develops such measures to assess seven specific risk perceptions of market-leading ST products: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to tobacco cessation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We fielded 64 items assessing risk perceptions associated with tobacco in an online survey experiment (N = 2754) that tested effects of exposing participants to a modified risk claim on a leading ST product. Through reliability and validity analyses, we reduced this to 35 items representing seven constructs. Exploratory factor analyses indicated single-factor solutions for all but two constructs: absolute health risk and health risk relative to cigarettes, which were each represented by two-factors (respiratory and oral risks). Participants perceived respiratory risks differently than oral risks: a modified risk claim reduced ST relative respiratory risk perceptions but increased ST perceived oral risks. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute and relative risk perceptions were each represented by two factors that behaved differently, underscoring the utility of assessing respiratory and oral risk perceptions separately. These measures of seven risk perception constructs demonstrated some validity and can be used to assess perceptions of ST risk in future research, such as postmarket surveillance of tobacco products authorized for marketing by FDA. IMPLICATIONS: This study develops and validates publicly available measures of seven smokeless tobacco risk perception constructs: absolute health and addiction risks, health and addiction risks relative to cigarettes, pregnancy health risks relative to cigarettes, health risks relative to nicotine replacement therapy, and health risks relative to tobacco cessation. This study suggests that for both absolute and relative risk perceptions, risks of respiratory and oral health effects should be assessed separately, because these risk perceptions may be impacted differently by modified risk claims, and are differentially related to smokeless tobacco beliefs, use intentions, and current use.

A review of risk perception measurement in tobacco control research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of risk perception measures used in tobacco control research and to evaluate whether these measures incorporate measurement suggestions put forward by risk perception measurement scholars. DATA SOURCES: Three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched in March 2015 for published English language peer-reviewed articles measuring tobacco risk perceptions (n=2557). The search string included terms related to tobacco products, perceptions and risk. STUDY SELECTION: Three coders independently coded abstracts for initial inclusion. In total, 441 articles met the initial inclusion criteria, and 100 were randomly selected for a full-text review. DATA EXTRACTION: A codebook was developed and tested through a training phase. Three coders independently coded the characteristics of each article (eg, population), multi-item measure (eg, validity) and item (eg, likelihood, affect, health outcome). Fifty-four articles, 33 measures and 239 items were coded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one articles had a multi-item risk perception measure, and 12 articles had one risk perception item. Many of the items asked about general health outcomes (36%), did not specify the person for whom risk was being judged (44%; eg, self, average person) or did not specify the conditions of use (27%; eg, the product used, intensity of use). CONCLUSIONS: There is little consistency across risk perception measures in tobacco research. There may be value in developing and disseminating best practices for assessing tobacco risk perceptions. A set of risk perception consensus measures may also benefit researchers in the field to help them consistently apply measurement recommendations.

Transitions in electronic cigarette use among adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, Waves 1 and 2 (2013-2015).

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed patterns of e-cigarette and cigarette use from Wave 1 to Wave 2 among adult e-cigarette users at Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. METHODS: We examined changes in e-cigarette use frequency at Wave 2 among adult e-cigarette users at Wave 1 (unweighted n=2835). Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) were calculated using a predicted marginal probability approach to assess correlates of e-cigarette discontinuance and smoking abstinence at Wave 2. RESULTS: Half (48.8%) of adult e-cigarette users at Wave 1 discontinued their use of e-cigarettes at Wave 2. Among dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes at Wave 1, 44.3% maintained dual use, 43.5% discontinued e-cigarette use and maintained cigarette smoking and 12.1% discontinued cigarette use at Wave 2, either by abstaining from cigarette smoking only (5.1%) or discontinuing both products (7.0%). Among dual users at Wave 1, daily e-cigarette users were more likely than non-daily users to report smoking abstinence at Wave 2 (aPR=1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.91). Using a customisable device (rather than a non-customisable one) was not significantly related to smoking abstinence at Wave 2 (aPR=1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that e-cigarette use patterns are highly variable over a 1-year period. This analysis provides the first nationally representative estimates of transitions among US adult e-cigarette users. Future research, including additional waves of the PATH Study, can provide further insight into long-term patterns of e-cigarette use critical to understanding the net population health impact of e-cigarettes in USA.

Cigar package quantity and smoking behavior.

BACKGROUND: Several jurisdictions in the US and abroad limit the minimum number of cigars that can be sold per package. Research has not evaluated whether small packages might result in cigar use initiation, or whether adding cigars to packages might result in purchasers smoking more cigars. METHODS: Using nationally representative US adult data from Waves 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we assessed links between cigar package quantity (number of cigars in the package a person usually buys) and (1) price, and (2) cigar and cigarette use over time, for three cigar types: filtered cigars, cigarillos, and large cigars. RESULTS: Smaller quantity packages (i.e., packages with fewer cigars) were cheaper per-pack than larger quantity packages but more expensive per-stick for all three cigar types. For filtered cigars, past-year starters tended to buy smaller quantity packages compared to longer-term users (geometric mean = 6.31 vs. 11.75, respectively; b = -.18, 95%CI: -.32, -.04). Also, those who bought smaller quantity packages of filtered cigars tended to smoke fewer cigars over time compared to those who bought larger quantity packages (b = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.45, 1.87). Neither of these associations was observed for cigarillos or large cigars. We also found little evidence that buying larger quantity packages predicted continuing to use cigars or using cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found consistent associations between package quantity and price, we found few associations between package quantity and changes in cigar smoking behaviors over time, particularly for cigarillos and large cigars. Key limitations include our adult-only analyses and inability to determine the package quantity that cigar users initiated with. Future studies could examine whether package quantity plays a causal role in filtered cigar use initiation or consumption rates.

US Adult Interest in Less Harmful and Less Addictive Hypothetical Modified Risk Tobacco Products.

Introduction: Tobacco companies have a history of making health claims about their new products. Such claims are now regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. We examined consumer interest in hypothetical modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs) among current, former, and never established smokers and examined whether interest was associated with beliefs about tobacco and cancer. Methods: Data were analyzed from the US nationally representative 2015 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-FDA 2015; N = 3738). Interest in hypothetical MRTPs was assessed by asking participants their likelihood of using tobacco products claiming to be less addictive and less harmful than other products. Results: About half of current smokers and a tenth of both former and never smokers reported they were "somewhat" or "very" likely to try hypothetical MRTPs claiming to be less harmful or less addictive. Female smokers, former smokers with lower smoking harm perceptions, and never smokers who are young adults or without college education expressed more interest in these products. Interest in using these products was positively associated with believing that smoking status is a changeable individual characteristic and that it is possible for tobacco products to be made without some harmful chemicals. Conclusion: We identified several subgroups of current, former, and never smokers who may be particularly affected by the marketing of MRTPs and therefore important to study to inform models of the potential population health impact of authorizing the marketing of MRTPs. Implications: Findings about interest in hypothetical MRTPs can inform models of how the marketing of MRTPs could affect population health. Understanding which subgroups are particularly interested in MRTPs can help determine who might be important to study to inform these models. We identified several groups who may warrant specific attention: smokers who are female, former smokers who hold low harm perceptions of smoking, never smokers who are young adults or have a high school education or less, people who believe that smoking is a changeable individual characteristic, and people who believe that it is possible to make low chemical tobacco products.

How tobacco companies have used package quantity for consumer targeting.

INTRODUCTION: Package quantity refers to the number of cigarettes or amount of other tobacco product in a package. Many countries restrict minimum cigarette package quantities to avoid low-cost packs that may lower barriers to youth smoking. METHODS: We reviewed Truth Tobacco Industry Documents to understand tobacco companies' rationales for introducing new package quantities, including companies' expectations and research regarding how package quantity may influence consumer behaviour. A snowball sampling method (phase 1), a static search string (phase 2) and a follow-up snowball search (phase 3) identified 216 documents, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s, concerning cigarettes (200), roll-your-own tobacco (9), smokeless tobacco (6) and 'smokeless cigarettes' (1). RESULTS: Companies introduced small and large packages to motivate brand-switching and continued use among current users when faced with low market share or threats such as tax-induced price increases or competitors' use of price promotions. Companies developed and evaluated package quantities for specific brands and consumer segments. Large packages offered value-for-money and matched long-term, heavy users' consumption rates. Small packages were cheaper, matched consumption rates of newer and lighter users, and increased products' novelty, ease of carrying and perceived freshness. Some users also preferred small packages as a way to try to limit consumption or quit. CONCLUSION: Industry documents speculated about many potential effects of package quantity on appeal and use, depending on brand and consumer segment. The search was non-exhaustive, and we could not assess the quality of much of the research or other information on which the documents relied.

Patterns of Use of Smokeless Tobacco in US Adults, 2013-2014.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of smokeless tobacco (SLT) use, by type, in wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed data from 32 320 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) to assess the use of pouched snus and other SLT products (loose snus, moist snuff, dip, spit, and chewing tobacco). RESULTS: Overall, SLT use was most common among men, younger adults, non-Hispanic Whites, and nonurban respondents. Pouched snus users were more likely to report nondaily and polytobacco use than users of other SLT products. Respondents who used SLT some days were more likely to be current established cigarette smokers than those who used SLT every day (57.9% vs 20.2%). Furthermore, current established smokers who used SLT some days were more likely to smoke every day and had a higher median number of cigarettes smoked per day than smokers who used SLT every day. CONCLUSIONS: Polytobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is common among SLT users. Pouched snus users are more likely to report nondaily snus use and polytobacco use than users of other SLT products.

U.S. adults' addiction and harm beliefs about nicotine and low nicotine cigarettes.

This research described U.S. adults' beliefs about nicotine and low nicotine cigarettes (LNCs) using the nationally-representative Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-FDA 2015; N=3738). About three quarters of people either were unsure of the relationship between nicotine and cancer or incorrectly believed that nicotine causes cancer. People who were non-White, less educated, age 65+, and never established smokers were most likely to be unaware that nicotine is not a cause of cancer. More than a quarter of people held the potentially inaccurate beliefs that LNCs would be less harmful and addictive than typical cigarettes. Whites were more likely than Blacks to believe LNCs were less harmful than typical cigarettes, and never smokers were more likely to believe this than established quitters. Whites and people with at least a college degree were more likely to believe that LNCs would be less addictive than typical cigarettes. Overall, we found that many people, particularly the demographic subgroups identified here, held incorrect beliefs about nicotine and potentially inaccurate beliefs about LNCs. Findings should be considered in assessing the public health impact of marketing low nicotine products. Incorrectly believing that nicotine causes cancer could discourage smokers from switching to safer nicotine-containing alternatives, and could lead nonsmokers to experiment with low nicotine tobacco products, believing that cancer risk would be reduced. Findings underscore the need to educate the public on the health effects of nicotine and LNCs, and can help public health practitioners determine which subgroups should be prioritized in targeted educational efforts.

US Consumers' Understanding of Nutrition Labels in 2013: The Importance of Health Literacy.

INTRODUCTION: We examined US adults' understanding of a Nutrition Facts panel (NFP), which requires health literacy (ie, prose, document, and quantitative literacy skills), and the association between label understanding and dietary behavior. METHODS: Data were from the Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey of health information seeking among US adults (N = 3,185) conducted from September 6, 2013, through December 30, 2013. Participants viewed an ice cream nutrition label and answered 4 questions that tested their ability to apply basic arithmetic and understanding of percentages to interpret the label. Participants reported their intake of sugar-sweetened soda, fruits, and vegetables. Regression analyses tested associations among label understanding, demographic characteristics, and self-reported dietary behaviors. RESULTS: Approximately 24% of people could not determine the calorie content of the full ice-cream container, 21% could not estimate the number of servings equal to 60 g of carbohydrates, 42% could not estimate the effect on daily calorie intake of foregoing 1 serving, and 41% could not calculate the percentage daily value of calories in a single serving. Higher scores for label understanding were associated with consuming more vegetables and less sugar-sweetened soda, although only the association with soda consumption remained significant after adjusting for demographic factors. CONCLUSION: Many consumers have difficulty interpreting nutrition labels, and label understanding correlates with self-reported dietary behaviors. The 2016 revised NFP labels may address some deficits in consumer understanding by eliminating the need to perform certain calculations (eg, total calories per package). However, some tasks still require the ability to perform calculations (eg, percentage daily value of calories). Schools have a role in teaching skills, such as mathematics, needed for nutrition label understanding.

Characteristics of Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2015.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are now the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. youths (1,2); in 2015, 5.3% of middle school students and 16.0% of high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the past 30 days (1). However, limited information exists on the e-cigarette product types and brands used and the substances used in these products by youths. CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed data from the 2015 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) to examine the characteristics of e-cigarette use among U.S. middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) school students in 2015, including types of products used, brands of products used, and whether substances other than nicotine were used with the products. Among respondents reporting ever having used an e-cigarette, 14.5% used only disposable e-cigarettes, 53.4% used only rechargeable/refillable e-cigarettes, and 32.1% used both types. Two of the most commonly used e-cigarette brands were blu (26.4%, 1.65 million youths) and VUSE (12.2%, 760,000 youths); half of students (50.7%, 3.18 million) did not know the brand of e-cigarette they used. One third (32.5%) of those who reported ever using an e-cigarette also reported having used e-cigarettes for substances other than nicotine. Preventing youths from beginning use of any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, is critical to tobacco use prevention and control strategies in the United States (3). Monitoring the characteristics of e-cigarette use among youths, including product types, brands, and ingredients, is important to inform strategies to prevent and reduce e-cigarette use among youths.

The Tripartite Model of Risk Perception (TRIRISK): Distinguishing Deliberative, Affective, and Experiential Components of Perceived Risk.

BACKGROUND: Although risk perception is a key predictor in health behavior theories, current conceptions of risk comprise only one (deliberative) or two (deliberative vs. affective/experiential) dimensions. PURPOSE: This research tested a tripartite model that distinguishes among deliberative, affective, and experiential components of risk perception. METHOD: In two studies, and in relation to three common diseases (cancer, heart disease, diabetes), we used confirmatory factor analyses to examine the factor structure of the tripartite risk perception (TRIRISK) model and compared the fit of the TRIRISK model to dual-factor and single-factor models. In a third study, we assessed concurrent validity by examining the impact of cancer diagnosis on (a) levels of deliberative, affective, and experiential risk perception, and (b) the strength of relations among risk components, and tested predictive validity by assessing relations with behavioral intentions to prevent cancer. RESULTS: The tripartite factor structure was supported, producing better model fit across diseases (studies 1 and 2). Inter-correlations among the components were significantly smaller among participants who had been diagnosed with cancer, suggesting that affected populations make finer-grained distinctions among risk perceptions (study 3). Moreover, all three risk perception components predicted unique variance in intentions to engage in preventive behavior (study 3). CONCLUSIONS: The TRIRISK model offers both a novel conceptualization of health-related risk perceptions, and new measures that enhance predictive validity beyond that engendered by unidimensional and bidimensional models. The present findings have implications for the ways in which risk perceptions are targeted in health behavior change interventions, health communications, and decision aids.

Factor Structure and Stability of Smoking-Related Health Beliefs in the National Lung Screening Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Absolute and comparative risk perceptions, worry, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy are important theoretical determinants of tobacco use, but no measures have been validated to ensure the discriminant validity as well as test-retest reliability of these measures in the tobacco context. The purpose of the current study is to examine the reliability and factor structure of a measure assessing smoking-related health cognitions and emotions in a national sample of current and former heavy smokers in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: A sub-study of the National Lung Screening Trial assessed current and former smokers' (age 55-74; N = 4379) self-reported health cognitions and emotions at trial enrollment and at 12-month follow-up. Items were derived from the Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model. RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis of baseline responses revealed a five-factor structure for former smokers (risk perceptions, worry, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy) and a six-factor structure for current smokers, such that absolute risk and comparative risk perceptions emerged as separate factors. A confirmatory factor analysis of 12-month follow-up responses revealed a good fit for the five latent constructs for former smokers and six latent constructs for current smokers. Longitudinal stability of these constructs was also demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine tobacco-related health cognition and emotional constructs over time in current and former heavy smokers undergoing lung screening. This study found that the theoretical constructs were stable across time and that the factor structure differed based on smoking status (current vs. former).

Ever-Use and Curiosity About Cigarettes, Cigars, Smokeless Tobacco, and Electronic Cigarettes Among US Middle and High School Students, 2012-2014.

INTRODUCTION: Among young people, curiosity about tobacco products is a primary reason for tobacco experimentation and is a risk factor for future use. We examined whether curiosity about and ever-use of tobacco products among US middle and high school students changed from 2012 to 2014. METHODS: Data came from the 2012 and 2014 National Youth Tobacco Surveys, nationally representative surveys of US students in grades 6 through 12. For cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes (2014 only), students were classified as ever-users or never-users of each product. Among never-users, curiosity about using each product was assessed by asking participants if they had "definitely," "probably," "probably not," or "definitely not" been curious about using the product. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, there were declines in ever-use of cigarettes (26% to 22%; P = .005) and cigars (21% to 18%; P = .003) overall and among students who were Hispanic (cigarettes, P = .001; cigars, P = .001) or black (cigarettes, P = .004; cigars, P = .01). The proportion of never-users reporting they were "definitely not" curious increased for cigarettes (51% to 54%; P = .01) and cigars (60% to 63%; P = .03). Ever-use and curiosity about smokeless tobacco did not change significantly from 2012 to 2014. In 2014, the proportion of young people who were "definitely" or "probably" curious never-users of each product was as follows: cigarettes, 11.4%; e-cigarettes, 10.8%; cigars, 10.3%; and smokeless tobacco, 4.4%. CONCLUSION: The proportion of US students who are never users and are not curious about cigarettes and cigars increased. However, many young people remain curious about tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Understanding factors driving curiosity can inform tobacco use prevention for youth.

Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

Why do people avoid medical care? A qualitative study using national data.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined barriers to health care utilization, with the majority conducted in the context of specific populations and diseases. Less research has focused on why people avoid seeking medical care, even when they suspect they should go. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to present a comprehensive description and conceptual categorization of reasons people avoid medical care. DESIGN: Data were collected as part of the 2008 Health Information National Trends Survey, a cross-sectional national survey. PARTICIPANTS: Participant-generated reasons for avoiding medical care were provided by 1,369 participants (40% male; M age =48.9; 75.1% non-Hispanic white, 7.4% non-Hispanic black, 8.5% Hispanic or Latino/a). MAIN MEASURES: Participants first indicated their level of agreement with three specific reasons for avoiding medical care; these data are reported elsewhere. We report responses to a follow-up question in which participants identified other reasons they avoid seeking medical care. Reasons were coded using a general inductive approach. KEY RESULTS: Three main categories of reasons for avoiding medical care were identified. First, over one-third of participants (33.3% of 1,369) reported unfavorable evaluations of seeking medical care, such as factors related to physicians, health care organizations, and affective concerns. Second, a subset of participants reported low perceived need to seek medical care (12.2%), often because they expected their illness or symptoms to improve over time (4.0%). Third, many participants reported traditional barriers to medical care (58.4%), such as high cost (24.1%), no health insurance (8.3%), and time constraints (15.6%). We developed a conceptual model of medical care avoidance based on these results. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for avoiding medical care were nuanced and highly varied. Understanding why people do not make it through the clinic door is critical to extending the reach and effectiveness of patient care, and these data point to new directions for research and strategies to reduce avoidance.

Absolute and comparative cancer risk perceptions among smokers in two cities in China.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about health effects of smoking motivates quit attempts and sustained abstinence among smokers and also predicts greater acceptance of tobacco control efforts such as cigarette taxes and public smoking bans. We examined whether smokers in China, the world's largest consumer of cigarettes, recognized their heightened personal risk of cancer relative to nonsmokers. METHODS: A sample of Chinese people (N = 2,517; 555 current smokers) from 2 cities (Beijing and Hefei) estimated their personal risk of developing cancer, both in absolute terms (overall likelihood) and in comparative terms (relative to similarly aged people). RESULTS: Controlling for demographics, smokers judged themselves to be at significantly lower risk of cancer than did nonsmokers on the comparative measure. No significant difference emerged between smokers and nonsmokers in absolute estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers in China did not recognize their heightened personal risk of cancer, possibly reflecting ineffective warning labels on cigarette packs, a positive affective climate associated with smoking in China, and beliefs that downplay personal vulnerability among smokers (e.g., I don't smoke enough to increase my cancer risk; I smoke high-quality cigarettes that won't cause cancer).

Association of cancer worry and perceived risk with doctor avoidance: an analysis of information avoidance in a nationally representative US sample.

Fear of receiving bad news about one's health can lead people to avoid seeking out health information that, ironically, may be crucial for health maintenance. Using a nationally representative US sample, the present study examined whether perceived likelihood of developing cancer and worry about cancer were associated with reports of avoiding visits to one's doctor, in respondents under and over age 50. Cancer worry, but not perceived risk of cancer, predicted doctor avoidance in respondents aged 50 and older, whereas the opposite pattern held for respondents under age 50. Moreover, in respondents aged 50 and older, cancer worry and perceived cancer risk interacted such that cancer worry was linked to doctor avoidance only when respondents also perceived a high likelihood of cancer. The latter result is consistent with the notion that worry may motivate information seeking when people expect information to dispel worry and information avoidance when the information is seen as highly likely to confirm one's fears. Findings suggest a need for communication strategies that can influence worry and perceived risk differentially. Research should also assess the effectiveness of other behavioral strategies (e.g., automatic scheduling of appointments) as a means for reducing doctor avoidance.

Just blowing smoke? Social desirability and reporting of intentions to quit smoking.

INTRODUCTION: Do cigarette smokers really want to quit smoking or do they simply say they do in order to placate others and avoid criticism? In surveys of smokers, stated quit intentions and reports of quit attempts may be biased by social desirability concerns. This makes it difficult to interpret large-scale state and national surveys of smoking behavior that collect data through telephone and face-to-face interviews, methods that tend to evoke high levels of socially desirable responding. METHODS: The 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey used a dual-frame design to query smokers' quit intentions and past quit attempts in 1 of 2 ways: A self-administered mail survey (low pressure for socially desirable responding; n = 563), or an interviewer-administered telephone survey (high pressure for socially desirable responding; n = 499). Estimates derived from the 2 formats were compared to test for social desirability effects. RESULTS: In both survey modes, approximately two thirds of smokers reported seriously considering quitting in the next 6 months (mail: 64.9%; telephone: 68.9%), and approximately half reported making a quit attempt in the past year (mail: 54.9%; telephone: 52.3%). Neither difference approached significance in logistic regressions controlling for demographics (ps > .24). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that a large proportion of smokers in the United States aspire to live smoke-free lives and are not simply responding in a socially desirable manner to deflect criticism in an antismoking social climate. Future research should (1) replicate this study with greater statistical power, (2) examine the possible effects of survey context (e.g., health survey vs. smoking pleasure survey), and (3) explore survey mode effects in specific subpopulations.