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.

Perceptions of a reduced nicotine policy and predictors of policy support: A nationally representative U.S. survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (∼ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers. METHODS: Data were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated. RESULTS: In adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy. CONCLUSIONS: Educational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion.

Independent and combined effects of very low nicotine cigarette messages and e-cigarette messages: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: USA is considering reducing nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels, coupled with promoting alternative nicotine delivery products (eg, e-cigarettes). However, effective communication is needed to reduce misperceptions about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) being less harmful than regular cigarettes. METHODS: In 2022-2023, we conducted a four-group randomised clinical trial with a national probability sample from an online panel (971 adults who smoked cigarettes exclusively, 472 adults who dual used cigarettes and e-cigarettes and 458 adults aged 18-29 who had never smoked). Participants were randomised (parallel assignment) to one message condition: (1) VLNCs as harmful but easier to quit than regular cigarettes (n=468), (2) those who are not ready to quit should consider switching to e-cigarettes as less harmful alternatives (n=484), (3) combined (VLNC and e-cigarette messages; n=476) or (4) control condition (ie, water ads), n=473. The primary outcome was perceived absolute harm of VLNCs. RESULTS: Perceived harm of VLNCs was higher in the VLNC condition compared with the e-cigarette and control conditions, and higher in the combined condition compared with the e-cigarette condition (adjusted p<0.05). Among adults who dual used, intention to switch to e-cigarettes was higher in the VLNC condition than the e-cigarette, combined or control conditions (adjusted p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VLNC messages reduced the misperception that VLNCs are less harmful than cigarettes, but adding messages about e-cigarettes did not enhance desired outcomes. These VLNC messages can be considered during the rollout of a reduced nicotine policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05506046.

Reactions to Messages About a Nicotine Reduction Policy: A Focus Group Study Among People Who Use Little Cigars and Cigarillos.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed rulemaking to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products to non-addictive levels. This qualitative study documents reactions to messages communicating this policy among people who use little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs). AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with participants from four populations with the highest prevalence of cigar use (African American males and females, white males and females). Participants described their reactions to eight messages about the policy: Three messages about the equal risk of LCCs with regular and low nicotine levels; three quit efficacy messages about low nicotine LCCs being easier to quit; one "compensation" message to correct misperceptions about the policy causing people to smoke more to get desired nicotine; and one message about using alternative nicotine sources (eg, e-cigarettes). RESULTS: Participants perceived risk messages as the most motivating to quit, whereas efficacy messages made some participants feel that the policy would cause former users of LCCs to relapse. Many participants expressed favorable responses to the compensation message. The message about using alternative nicotine sources sparked intense responses, with many participants expressing outrage and mistrust of the message. Participants' beliefs that they were not addicted to LCCs dampened their perceptions of the effectiveness of the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the addictiveness and relative harms of LCCS influenced responses to policy messages. The FDA should consider using different messages to communicate with people who use LCCs because they perceive LCCs as different from cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to document affective and cognitive responses to the FDA's reduced nicotine policy among people who use LCCs. The false belief that cigar products are less harmful than cigarettes may be influencing people's lack of support for the reduced nicotine policy and difficulty in understanding its potential positive impact. To maximize the public health benefit of the reduced nicotine policy, the FDA should include LCC products in the policy; however, it is crucial that they use educational messaging to clarify misperceptions regarding nicotine and harm as it applies to LCCs.

Combining Inserts With Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs to Promote Smoking Cessation: A 2-Week Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette pack inserts with messages on cessation benefits and advice are a promising labeling policy that may help promote smoking cessation. PURPOSE: To assess insert effects, with and without accompanying pictorial health warning labels(HWLs), on hypothesized psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject randomized trial (inserts with efficacy messages vs. no inserts; large pictorial HWLs vs. small text HWLs), with 367 adults who smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day. Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs modified to reflect their experimental condition. Over 2 weeks, we surveyed participants approximately 4-5 times a day during their smoking sessions, querying feelings about smoking, level of worry about harms from smoking, self-efficacy to cut down on cigarettes, self-efficacy to quit, hopefulness about quitting, and motivation to quit. Each evening, participants reported their perceived susceptibility to smoking harms and, for the last 24 hr, their frequency of thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, conversations about smoking cessation or harms, and foregoing or stubbing out cigarettes before they finished smoking. Mixed-effects ordinal and logistic models were estimated to evaluate differences between groups. RESULTS: Participants whose packs included inserts were more likely than those whose packs did not include inserts to report foregoing or stubbing out of cigarettes (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.36, 4.20). Otherwise, no statistically significant associations were found between labeling conditions and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some evidence, albeit limited, that pack inserts with efficacy messages can promote behaviors that predict smoking cessation attempts.

Cigarette pack inserts (small leaflets inside packs) with messages about quitting benefits and tips to quit may promote smoking cessation. We randomly assigned 367 adult smokers to one of four groups: control group with small health warning labels (HWLs) on the side of packs; inserts with cessation messages and small HWLs; large picture HWLs showing health effects from smoking; inserts and large picture HWLs. Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes in packs that reflected their assigned group. Over 2 weeks, we surveyed participants 4­5 times a day during times when they smoked, asking their feelings about smoking and smoking-related harms, confidence to reduce cigarettes and quit, hopefulness about quitting, and motivation to quit. Each evening, participants reported on the prior 24 hr: how often they thought about smoking harms and cessation benefits; conversations about smoking cessation or harms; and foregoing or stubbing out cigarettes before they finished smoking. People whose packs had inserts (with or without picture HWLs) were more likely than those whose packs did not include inserts (control group or picture HWLs only) to report foregoing or stubbing out of cigarettes. This study provides some evidence that inserts with cessation messages may promote smoking cessation.

Recruitment Methods, Inclusion, and Successful Participation in a Longitudinal Clinical Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Underrepresentation of historically marginalized populations in clinical trials continues to threaten the validity of health intervention research. Evidence supports the merits of intercept and other proactive forms of recruitment for achieving more equitable representation. However, researchers also report lower retention and adherence to protocols among these populations, particularly in longitudinal studies. Few studies have compared recruitment methods for longitudinal randomized trials testing health interventions, with even fewer having done so for trials involving ecological momentary assessment (EMA). As intervention research integrates EMA and other data collection approaches requiring substantial participant effort, it is critical to better understand the effectiveness and implications of strategies to improve the representativeness of health research. This secondary data analysis compared outcomes of proactive and reactive recruitment strategies (mobile lab intercepts and internet/flyer advertising, respectively) in study inclusion, task completion, and retention within a 14-day randomized controlled trial that used EMA to evaluate cigarette package health messages. Proactive recruitment resulted in higher proportions of participants with low income and education, limited health literacy, and of diverse racial/ethnic makeup. However, this recruitment method also resulted in lower task completion, especially in the second week of the trial period, and lower retention, although group differences were not explained by participant sociodemographic characteristics targeted by inclusion efforts. We conclude that proactive recruitment via intercepts is an effective strategy for health intervention research that aims to include stakeholders from historically marginalized groups but that researchers and funders must recognize these methods require additional resources, considerations, and capacity to address non-trivial challenges to successful participation.

A mixed-method study of perceptions of cigarette pack inserts among adult smokers from New York and South Carolina exposed as part of a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Qualitative analysis of anti-abortion discourse used in arguments for a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina.

Background: On 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Testifiers (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. Discussion: Abortion 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.

"I Crave a Blunt, I Don't Crave a Cigarillo": A Focus Group Study on Perceptions of Nicotine and Addiction among US Adults Who Currently Smoke Little Cigars or Cigarillos.

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s proposal to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes is gaining traction, it is still undetermined whether the policy will also include other combustible tobacco products, such as little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and how such a policy should be communicated given the patterns of use and perceptions around LCCs. This study examined perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCC use and involved data collection from eight semi-structured virtual focus groups conducted in Summer 2021 in the US. Participants were adults who reported past-30-day use of LCCs, consisting of African American males (n = 9), African American females (n = 9), white males (n = 14), and white females (n = 11). Participants discussed their perceptions of nicotine and addiction in general and in relation to LCC use. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Differences across race and sex groups were examined. Participants did not consider nicotine to be a characterizing feature of LCCs; rather, they generally associated nicotine with cigarettes. Participants' views of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs were discussed along four dimensions: context of use, frequency of use, the presence of cravings, and whether a product is modified (e.g., by adding marijuana). Social and infrequent use, a lack of cravings, and the use of LCCs for marijuana were considered indicative of a lack of addiction and reasons not to be concerned about nicotine in LCCs. Because perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs differ from those of cigarettes, communications about a reduced nicotine policy that includes LCCs should consider these differences to ensure the policy is understood by people who currently use LCCs and to prevent people who use cigarettes from switching to LCCs.

Messaging about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to influence policy attitudes, harm perceptions and smoking motivations: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: To reduce smoking and the harms it causes, countries, including the USA, are considering policies to reduce nicotine in combustible tobacco to minimally addictive levels. Effective messages about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) and this policy are crucial in combating misperceptions threatening the policy's effectiveness. DATA AND METHODS: A discrete choice experiment assessed messages about VLNCs. Participants were 590 adults who smoked exclusively, 379 adults who both smoked and used e-cigarettes, 443 adults who formerly smoked and 351 young adults who never smoked (total n=1763). Seven message attributes were varied systematically (source, harm, chemicals, nicotine, satisfaction, addictiveness and quitting efficacy). Outcomes were selection of messages that generated the most positive attitude towards reduced nicotine policy, the greatest perceived harmfulness of VLNCs, and most strongly motivated quitting and initiating behaviour for VLNCs. RESULTS: Information about specific harms and chemicals of VLNCs had the largest effects on selection of messages as eliciting more negative attitudes towards VLNCs policy, increasing perceived VLNC harmfulness, increasing motivation to quit VLNCs and decreasing motivation to try VLNCs. Messages with information about quitting efficacy were selected as more motivating to quit among those who smoke, but also more motivating to try VLNCs among those who do not smoke. CONCLUSION: Harm and chemical information can be prioritised to ensure VLNCs are not misperceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Messages about increased quitting efficacy and reduced addictiveness associated with VLNCs may backfire if presented to those who do not smoke.