Reactions to a Hypothetical Menthol Cigarette Ban among Sexual- and Gender-Minoritized Communities: A Concept Mapping Study.

Menthol cigarette use is disproportionately higher among sexual- and gender-minoritized (SGM; 36%) individuals compared to cisgender, heterosexual (29%), individuals. The FDA has announced intentions to ban menthol in cigarettes, citing these use and health disparities as partial motivation. This study identified potential outcomes of a menthol cigarette ban among SGM individuals who smoke menthol cigarettes (N = 72). Potential outcomes were identified via concept mapping using the prompt: "If menthol in cigarettes was banned, a specific action I would take related to my tobacco use is…" Participants generated 82 response statements, sorted them, and rated them on personal relevance. Eight thematic clusters were identified: (1) Thoughtful Consideration of the Ban, (2) Negative Reactions to the Ban, (3) Positive Aspects of the Ban, (4) Strategies to Reduce Cravings, (5) Intent to Quit and Cessation Strategies, (6) Support-Seeking and Engagement in Positive Behaviors, (7) Strategies to Maintain Menthol-Flavored Product Use, and (8) Substance Use Alternatives to Menthol Cigarettes. Cluster differences based on sociodemographic factors, smoking behavior, and quitting interest were identified. Results provide insight into potential responses to a menthol cigarette ban and can contribute to public health prevention and intervention efforts, messaging campaigns, and support services for SGM people who smoke menthol cigarettes, specifically.

A national assessment of on-premise drinking establishments near public universities: Drink prices, drink specials, indoor tobacco use, and state-level alcohol laws.

BACKGROUND: Inexpensive drinks and price promotions increase alcohol consumption and have been observed at on-premise drinking establishments near large colleges. Some bars may sell tobacco products and allow indoor tobacco use to encourage patrons to stay and drink more. This study examined drink prices/specials and associated practices of on-premise drinking establishments including tobacco sales and policies regarding tobacco use. METHODS: In 2018, telephone calls about prices/practices were made to 403 randomly selected bars/nightclubs within 2 miles of large residential universities in each U.S. state. The Alcohol Policy Information System provided data on state-level alcohol laws. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models examined associations between alcohol prices/specials, state laws, and establishment practices. RESULTS: The average price for the least expensive draft beer and a vodka shot at each location were $3.62 (SD = $1.15) and $4.77 (SD = $1.16), respectively. Most establishments (65%) had happy hour specials, 6% had 2-for-1 specials, 91% sold food, 9% sold cigarettes, 8% allowed smoking indoors, and 18% permitted electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use indoors. Allowing e-cigarette use indoors (b = -0.54) and selling cigarettes (b = -0.79) were associated with lower vodka prices; allowing cigarette smoking indoors (b = -0.46) was associated with lower beer prices. Lower beer prices (OR = 1.38), selling food (OR = 2.97), and no state law banning happy hour specials altogether (OR = 4.24) or with full-day price reduction exemptions (OR = 12.74) were associated with higher odds of having happy hour specials. Allowing e-cigarette use indoors was associated with having 2-for-1 specials (OR = 6.38). CONCLUSION: In bars near large public universities, beers and shots were often available for less than $5 and drink specials were prevalent. Further, some establishments allowed tobacco use indoors and/or sold cigarettes. Laws that increase alcohol taxes, set minimum drink prices, and ban the sale and indoor use of tobacco products at on-premise drinking locations are important harm reduction tools.

Perceived Barriers to Serving on National Institutes of Health Scientific Review Groups Experienced by Black and African American Scientists.

Importance: African American and Black scientists are awarded disproportionately fewer National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants than White scientists. Increasing Black representation on NIH scientific review groups (SRGs) likely will contribute to increased equity in funding rates because research topics of Black and African American scientists' submitted applications will be more highly valued; however, Black and African American scientists often perceive barriers that prevent them from serving on NIH SRGs. Objective: To examine perceived barriers that prevent Black and African American scientists from serving on NIH SRGs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a mixed methods online approach with a convenience sample of Black and African American scientists to identify barriers to NIH grant review participation. Eligible participants were recruited online from professional organizations with primarily Black and African American membership. From February through April 2021, participants were asked to identify barriers to serving on NIH SRGs using concept mapping. Participants brainstormed statements describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs, sorted statements into content themes, and rated statements on how true they were. Multidimensional scaling and a hierarchical cluster analysis identified content themes. Data analysis was conducted in May and June of 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported barriers to serving on an NIH SRG among Black and African American scientists. Results: A total of 52 scientists participated in both phases of the study (mean [SD] age, 42.3 [8.2] years; 46 women [88.5%]). Participants provided 68 unique statements that were organized into 9 thematic clusters describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs. Themes included structural racism, diversity not valued, toxic environment, review workload demand, lack of reward, negative affect about the review process, competing demands at home institution, lack of opportunity, and perceptions of being unqualified. Conclusions and Relevance: Black and African American scientists reported many barriers to serving on NIH SRGs that are unique to Black and African American scientists, as well as barriers that transcend race but are exacerbated by structural racism. This study provides NIH with concrete opportunities to address realized barriers to increase inclusion of Black and African American scientists on NIH SRGs, fund more Black and African American scientists, and ultimately reduce health inequities in the US.

Longitudinal Analysis of Associations Between Reasons for Electronic Cigarette Use and Change in Smoking Status Among Adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (ECIG) use and changes in cigarette smoking status may be influenced by self-reported reasons for using ECIGs. METHODS: We analyzed adult current and former cigarette smokers who were also current or former ECIG users at wave 1 (n = 3044) using wave 1 and wave 2 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study data (2013-2015). Prevalence of reporting 13 reasons for ECIG use at wave 1 was examined and weighted logistic regressions were conducted predicting smoking status changes from wave 1 to wave 2. RESULTS: Reasons for ECIG use ranged from 18.1% (people in the media or public figures use them) to 82.5% (they might be less harmful to people around me than cigarettes). From wave 1 to wave 2, 27.2% of former smokers (n = 249) became current smokers and 11.6% of current smokers (n = 246) became former smokers. Among wave 1 former smokers, using ECIGs because of the availability of flavors (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.39-0.85) or because they don't smell (AOR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42-0.97) was associated with lower odds of relapse to smoking, but using ECIGs because using them helps people quit smoking (AOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01-2.38) was associated with greater odds of relapse. Among wave 1 current smokers, using ECIGs because they can be used where smoking is not allowed (AOR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.38-0.85) was associated with reduced odds of quitting cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Some reasons for ECIG use are associated with changes in self-reported smoking status. Researchers should examine ECIG user characteristics when assessing associations between ECIG use and smoking status transitions. IMPLICATIONS: Given that certain reasons for ECIG use, such as using ECIGs in locations are where smoking is not allowed, may inhibit smoking reduction, policies may be developed to prevent ECIG use in locations where smoking is banned. In addition, because certain reasons for ECIG use may aid in relapse prevention, such as availability of desired flavors, efforts should be made to identify ECIG device characteristics that are appealing to smokers but not youth or nontobacco users. These results provide support for future research on reasons for ECIG use to inform regulatory policies.

Abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette in combustible cigarette smokers.

Under certain conditions, electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) can deliver nicotine to and suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms in cigarette smokers. Growing popularity of e-cigs raises abuse liability concerns. This study's purpose was to compare the abuse liability of an e-cig (1.5 Ohm, 3.3 V) filled with 36 mg/mL or 0 mg/mL nicotine to an Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved nicotine inhaler (IN) and participants' own brand (OB) of cigarettes. Smokers (N = 24) completed four sessions in which they completed the multiple-choice procedure, and plasma nicotine concentration and subjective effects were measured. Mean (SD) multiple-choice procedure crossover point was $0.87 (1.0) for the 36-mg/mL nicotine e-cig and $0.96 (1.2) for the 0-mg/mL e-cig, significantly higher than the IN mean of $0.32 (0.6) but significantly lower than the OB cigarette mean of $1.42 (1.4). Ten puffs from an own-brand cigarette increased mean plasma nicotine concentration from 3.55 (2.8) to 13.64 (9.8) ng/mL, as compared to an increase from 3.16 (1.8) to 8.51 (5.4) ng/mL for the 36-mg/mL e-cig. The 36-mg/mL e-cig reduced nicotine abstinence symptoms more than the 0-mg/mL e-cig, and both e-cigs were rated as more reinforcing than the inhaler but less reinforcing than participants' OB cigarettes (ps < .05). Results suggest that the e-cig examined had higher abuse liability than the IN but lower than combustible cigarettes. These data and methods may be useful for policymakers by revealing how e-cig abuse liability compares to tobacco/nicotine products with abuse liability profiles that are well established. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).