Differential responses to cigarette package labeling alternatives among adults who smoke: Results from a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Little experimental research has evaluated whether the effects of cigarette package inserts with efficacy messages and/or pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) differ across key subgroups of adults who smoke. METHODS: Adults who reported currently smoking (n=367) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: small text-only health warning labels (HWLs) on pack sides (control); inserts with efficacy messages and small HWLs (inserts-only); PHWLs showing harms of smoking (PHWLs-only); both (inserts+PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of cigarettes labeled to reflect their group. Every evening over two weeks, participants reported forgoing and stubbing out cigarettes before they finished smoking over the prior 24 hours, combined into a binary indicator of either behavior (e.g., forgoing/stubbing). Separate mixed-effects logistic models were estimated to evaluate moderation of labeling group contrasts (i.e., PHWLs vs not; inserts vs. not; inserts-only vs. inserts+PHWLs; PHWLs-only vs. inserts+PHWLs) by baseline covariates (self-efficacy to quit, intention to quit, education, health literacy, time discounting), predicting day-level forgoing/stubbing. RESULTS: Education moderated PHWL effects, with PHWLs predicting more forgoing/stubbing only among those with low education (OR=4.68, p<0.001). Time discounting moderated insert effects, with inserts promoting fogoing/stubbing only among those with low time discounting (i.e., lower impulsivity; OR=4.35, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inserts with efficacy messages appear effective mostly among people with low time discounting, whereas PHWLs appear most effective amongst those with low education, suggesting their potential to address education-related disparities. Labeling strategies appeared equally effective across subgroups defined by self-efficacy to quit, quit intention, and health literacy. Combining inserts with PHWLs did not appear to mitigate moderation effects. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized trial with adults who smoke suggests that cigarette packs with inserts describing cessation benefits and tips can promote cessation-related behaviors (i.e., forgoing or stubbing out cigarettes) among those with low time discounting (i.e., low impulsivity). Alternative interventions may be needed for people with high time discounting, as found in cessation trials. Pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) appear most effective among those with low education, potentially addressing education-related disparities. No differential effects were found for those with different levels of self-efficacy to quit, quit intentions, or health literacy. Combining inserts and PHWLs may not be more effective than either alone.

Self-reported attention and responses to cigarette package labels at the end of a two-week randomized trial of cigarette package labeling configurations.

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 (inserts-only); 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.

Associations between news coverage, social media discussions, and search trends about celebrity deaths, screening, and other colorectal cancer-related events.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States. CRC-related events may increase media coverage and public attention, boosting awareness and prevention. This study examined associations between several types of CRC events (including unplanned celebrity cancer deaths and planned events like national CRC awareness months, celebrity screening behavior, and screening guideline changes) and news coverage, Twitter discussions, and Google search trends about CRC and CRC screening. METHODS: We analyzed data from U.S. national news media outlets, posts scraped from Twitter, and Google Trends on CRC and CRC screening during a three-year period from 2020 to 2022. We used burst detection methods to identify temporal spikes in the volume of news, tweets, and search after each CRC-related event. RESULTS: There is a high level of heterogeneity in the impact of celebrity CRC events. Celebrity CRC deaths were more likely to precede spikes in news and tweets about CRC overall than CRC screening. Celebrity screening preceded spikes in news and tweets about screening but not searches. Awareness months and screening guideline changes did precede spikes in news, tweets, and searches about screening, but these spikes were inconsistent, not simultaneous, and not as large as those events concerning most prominent public figures. CONCLUSIONS: CRC events provide opportunities to increase attention to CRC. Media and public health professionals should actively intervene during CRC events to increase emphasis on CRC screening and evidence-based recommendations.

The State of Hepatitis C Elimination from the Front Lines: A Qualitative Study of Provider-Perceived Gaps to Treatment Initiation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) is a curable chronic infection, but lack of treatment uptake contributes to ongoing morbidity and mortality. State and national strategies for HCV elimination emphasize the pressing need for people with HCV to receive treatment. OBJECTIVE: To identify provider-perceived barriers that hinder the initiation of curative HCV treatment and elimination of HCV in the USA. APPROACH: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 36 healthcare providers who have evaluated patients with HCV in New York City, Western/Central New York, and Alabama. Interviews, conducted between 9/2021 and 9/2022, explored providers' experiences, perceptions, and approaches to HCV treatment initiation. Transcripts were analyzed using hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis informed by established health services and implementation frameworks. KEY RESULTS: We revealed four major themes: (1) Providers encounter professional challenges with treatment provision, including limited experience with treatment and perceptions that it is beyond their scope, but are also motivated to learn to provide treatment; (2) providers work toward building streamlined and inclusive practice settings-leveraging partnerships with experts, optimizing efficiency through increased access, adopting inclusive cultures, and advocating for integrated care; (3) although at times overwhelmed by patients facing socioeconomic adversity, increases in public awareness and improvements in treatment policies create a favorable context for providers to treat; and (4) providers are familiar with the relative advantages of improved HCV treatments, but the reputation of past treatments continues to deter elimination. CONCLUSIONS: To address the remaining barriers and facilitators providers experience in initiating HCV treatment, strategies will need to expand educational initiatives for primary care providers, further support local infrastructures and integrated care systems, promote public awareness campaigns, remove prior authorization requirements and treatment limitations, and address the negative reputation of outdated HCV treatments. Addressing these issues should be considered priorities for HCV elimination approaches at the state and national levels.

Effects of communicating health disparities using social comparison framing: A comprehensive review.

Communicating health disparities in mass and social media has typically taken the form of comparing disease risks and outcomes between two or more social groups, a strategy known as social comparison framing. This comprehensive review examined the design and results of 17 studies from 15 peer-reviewed journal articles about the effects of social comparison framing of health disparities. Most studies focus on race-based disparities across a variety of health topics. For individual-level outcomes, social comparison tends to reduce perceived disease risks for the lower disease prevalence group while prompting negative emotions and yielding inconsistent impact on health behavioral intentions among members of the higher prevalence group. For societal-level outcomes, social comparison often has either null or polarizing effects on support for policies to address these disparities that vary by racial identity/attitudes of the respondents. Studies also find that racial comparisons trigger lower levels of support for policy remedies relative to economic, educational, or geographic comparisons. We conclude that social comparison framing of health disparities, in the absence of broader discussion of the social and structural causes of these disparities, is more likely to incur negative consequences. We propose several possible strategies to communicate health disparity information more effectively.

Managing a policy paradox? Responses to textual warning labels on E-cigarette advertisements among U.S. national samples of youth overall and adults who smoke or vape.

CONTEXT: Current use and potential future uptake of e-cigarettes among youth remain public health concerns in the U.S., even as people who smoke combustible cigarettes could benefit from switching completely to e-cigarettes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering alternative warning messages, but warnings that discourage youth from use may also deter people who smoke from switching. This study tests ten pre-registered hypotheses on effects of warning messages with national samples of youth overall and adults who smoke and/or vape. METHODS: NORC recruited 1639 adults (ages 18+) who smoke, vape, or use both products, from their probability-sampled AmeriSpeak Panel and augmented their AmeriSpeak Teen Panel with Lucid's nonprobability opt-in panel to recruit 1217 youth (ages 14-17) to participate in a web-based survey experiment. We randomly assigned respondents to view one of five warning label conditions and respond to measures of their e-cigarette risk beliefs, willingness to use e-cigarettes, and (among people who smoke or vape) considerations to quit these products. FINDINGS: Relative to the current FDA warning about nicotine, warning messages about the harms of e-cigarette use for youth brain development did not influence risk beliefs or reduce willingness to use these products among youth. Brain development warning messages did increase beliefs about these harms among adults but did not increase quit considerations among people who vape, relative to the FDA warning. Warning messages with information about chemical constituents of vaping products and the harm of these chemicals produced higher e-cigarette quit considerations than did the FDA warning among adults who vape. CONCLUSION: Potential alternative warning label messages were largely ineffective relative to the current FDA warning about nicotine, though limited evidence suggests some potential for chemical + harm messaging to encourage people who use both e-cigarettes and cigarettes to consider quitting both.