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.

Examining Perceptions of Uncertain Language in Potential E-Cigarette Warning Labels: Results from 16 Focus Groups with Adult Tobacco Users and Youth.

E-cigarette use among youth presents a public health risk. Yet, cigarette smokers who substantially reduce their smoking or switch completely from traditional combustible cigarettes could benefit. As science about e-cigarettes is continually emerging, any potential warnings are likely to contain uncertain language. Hedged verbiage may impact decision making. To assess reactions, we conducted 16 online focus groups; 8 with youth (n = 32, grouped by gender and by vaping experience) and 8 with adult tobacco users (n = 37, grouped by smokers, dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and former smokers who switched to e-cigarettes). Each focus group viewed and discussed 8 potential warnings messages. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the reactions to warning messages that contain uncertain language. Respondents' reactions were often negative, but varied based on specific usages of uncertainty, existing beliefs about uncertainty in law and science, and smoking/vaping use patterns that supported the use of uncertainty related to e-cigarettes. Many youth (and some adults) believed that uncertain language enabled audiences to minimize the likelihood of harm or interpreted it as meaning there are both healthy and unhealthy e-cigarettes. This qualitative study provides evidence that the use of types of uncertain language, the frequency of that use, and/or the selection of particular words in warnings, might not achieve the intended public health aims of increasing understanding of risk, deterring youth uptake, and/or facilitating a substantial switch from cigarettes. The use of certain types of uncertain language appears to have significant potential to bring unintended consequences. Suggestions for research and policy are included.

Challenges in communicating the benefits of switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes: Responses from eight adult focus groups with varying smoking experience.

This study explored the effectiveness of nuanced messages, described in our study as warnings, that seek to convey the potential benefits of switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes for adults. The messages were designed to convey the potentially complex idea that e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than combustible cigarettes but that e-cigarettes still present a risk. Eight adult focus groups (N = 37) with varying smoking profiles responded to a set of messages that are used by government agencies and non-government organizations to convey the benefits of switching and ongoing risk associated with e-cigarette use. Results indicate that a suggestion of health benefits from exclusive use of e-cigarettes was met with skepticism from users of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, and generated confusion about what these benefits were. Messages suggesting that individuals who have switched to e-cigarettes should not switch back to combustible cigarettes elicited the strongest statements of doubt and mistrust among focus group participants, regardless of smoking status. Participants representing all smoking profiles agreed with the message suggesting that switching from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes still exposes the user to ongoing health risks. Our focus group discussions suggest that adult smokers may not interpret nuanced messages about harm reduction in a way that will encourage switching behavior.

Equitable buyouts? Learning from state, county, and local floodplain management programs.

Climate change-exacerbated flooding has renewed interest in property buyouts as a pillar of managed retreat from coastal zones and floodplains in the United States. However, federal buyout programs are widely critiqued for being inaccessible and inequitable. To learn whether and how subnational buyout programs overcome these limitations, we examined five leading US state, county, and local buyout programs to see what they teach us about redesigning future federal policies. Our mixed-methods research used interviews and document analysis to develop case studies, juxtaposed subnational strategies against a review of critiques of federal buyouts, and focus group discussions with subnational buyout managers and experts to identify limitations of their programs. We find that subnational programs can be more inclusive and better respond to resident needs as compared to existing federal programs due to their access to dedicated, non-federal funding and their standing institutional status, which allows them to learn and evolve over time. Nevertheless, these programs lack coordination with and control over agencies that permit development and produce affordable housing. This gives buyout programs limited power in shaping the overall equity of who lives in floodplains and who has access to affordable, resilient housing after a buyout. Their experiences suggest federal programs can support managed retreat nationwide by increasing support for institutional and staff capacity at state and county levels, encouraging efforts to bridge institutional silos at subnational levels, and holistically mainstream climate considerations into regional floodplain development, affordable housing production, and flood risk mitigation.

Understanding Antibiotic Resistance as a Perceived Threat towards Dairy Cattle through Beliefs and Practices: A Survey-Based Study of Dairy Farmers.

Antibiotic use is an important component in dairy herd management both to treat bacterial diseases and to maximize animal welfare. However, there is concern among scientists that antibiotic misuse and/or overuse by farmers might promote the emergence of resistant pathogens. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire study with dairy farmers/managers in New York, USA to evaluate their (i) level of concern about antibiotic resistance and (ii) interest in adopting new judicious antibiotic use practices regarding mastitis treatment. A total of 118 responses were subjected to statistical analysis. The findings revealed that nearly half (45%) of study participants were undecided or disagreed that antibiotic resistance due to antibiotic use in dairy farming may negatively impact the health of dairy cattle. In contrast, the majority (78%) of participants self-reported that they do not treat with antibiotics at the first sign of mastitis, and the majority (66%) have either fully or partially implemented culture-based mastitis treatment on their farm. The self-reported adoption of culture-based mastitis treatment practices was statistically significantly associated with higher numbers of injectable and intramammary doses of antibiotics used on the participants' farms. These findings will aid future research investigations on how to promote sustainable antibiotic use practices in dairy cattle.

Correction: Consumer perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal husbandry: A scoping review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261010.].

Consumer perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal husbandry: A scoping review.

Antimicrobial use in animal agriculture is often perceived to play a role in the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance. Increased consumer awareness of this issue places pressure on animal husbandry to adopt policies to reduce or eliminate antimicrobial use. We use a scoping review methodology to assess research on consumer perceptions of antimicrobial drugs in meat products in the United States, Canada, or the European Union. Evaluating peer-reviewed and grey literature, we included studies for assessment if they met these topical and geographic requirements, involved primary data collection, and were originally published in English. Our screening process identified 124 relevant studies. Three reviewers jointly developed a data charting form and independently charted the contents of the studies. Of the 105 studies that measured consumer concern, 77.1% found that consumers were concerned about antimicrobial use in meat production. A minority of studies (29.8% of all studies) queried why consumers hold these views. These studies found human health and animal welfare were the main reasons for concern. Antimicrobial resistance rarely registered as an explicit reason for concern. A smaller group of studies (23.3%) measured the personal characteristics of consumers that expressed concern about antimicrobials. Among these studies, the most common and consistent features of these consumers were gender, age, income, and education. Regarding the methodology used, studies tended to be dominated by either willingness-to-pay studies or Likert scale questionnaires (73.64% of all studies). We recommend consideration of qualitative research into consumer views on this topic, which may provide new perspectives that explain consumer decision-making and mentality that are lacking in the literature. In addition, more research into the difference between what consumers claim is of concern and their ultimate purchasing decisions would be especially valuable.

How does public perception of antibiotic use on dairy farms contribute to self-reported purchasing of organic?

The United States regulates the use of antibiotics in agricultural settings to address the global antibiotic resistance problem. Conventional dairy cows treated with antibiotics are kept in the herd and after the withholding period milk is harvested. On organic farms, the US organic standard on antibiotic use requires sick dairy cows to be treated, but treated cows must be removed from the herd and their milk can never again be sold as certified organic. This study investigated the US public's perceptions of the organic dairy farming, antibiotic use on dairy farms, and whether these perceptions affect consumer's self-reported purchasing behavior for organic. We used a nationally representative phone-based survey of 1000 US adults and characterized participants' self-reported (i) knowledge of the legality of antibiotic use on dairy farms (conventional and organic) and (ii) frequency of purchasing organic instead of conventional dairy products, as well as several demographic and other variables. The results indicated that participants' knowledge about antibiotic use practices in dairy farming have no effect on their self-reported purchasing behavior for organic or conventional dairy products. However, respondents who were familiar with the regulations of antibiotic use on dairy farms were more likely to oppose the US organic standard on antibiotic use in dairy farming and thought that past antibiotic use should not permanently remove a cow's organic status. These findings contribute to understanding of public perceptions that shape the US dairy organic market. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Income, employment, health and political values, but not consumers' knowledge about antibiotic use in dairy farming, affect self-reported purchasing behavior for organic dairy products. However, consumers who are familiar with the regulations of antibiotic use on US dairy farms disagree with the US organic standard on antibiotic use mandating loss of organic status for any cattle treated with antibiotics. These findings may be useful to organic markets.

Survey of perceptions and attitudes of an international group of veterinarians regarding antibiotic use and resistance on dairy cattle farms.

Veterinarians are the main source of information for farmers regarding the responsible use of antibiotics in farm animals and how to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance. Consequently, understanding how veterinarians perceive their clients' and colleagues' antibiotic use and their own beliefs about the development of antibiotic resistance is essential to determining areas in which antibiotic use practices can be improved to minimize the emergence of antibiotic resistance. An international cross-sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire designed to elucidate perceptions, attitudes, and concerns of dairy veterinarians regarding antibiotic use and the emergence of antibiotic resistance in dairy farming. The questionnaire was initially administered to veterinarians attending the International Bovine Mastitis Conference in Milano, Italy, 2018, followed by veterinarian members of the National Mastitis Council, and all conference registrants. A total of 71 participants from 21 countries participated in the survey, the majority were from the United States and member countries of the European Union. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of veterinarians' level of concern about the development of antibiotic resistance on their clients' farms. Associations were described with odds ratios (ORs) and the associated 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs). Free text responses where participants shared their views on the reason for overprescribing antibiotics by veterinarians were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants perceived that nearly half of their clients overuse or inappropriately use antibiotics, and nearly half of their colleagues overprescribe or inappropriately prescribe antibiotics. After controlling for other factors, the odds of veterinarians being concerned about antibiotic resistance on dairy farms they served decreased by a factor of 0.91 for each additional year of participants' experience working with dairy cattle (OR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.84-0.99). Participants concerned about antibiotic resistance on clients' dairy farms were also more likely to consider better adherence to drug labelling as important for reducing farmers' antibiotic use (OR = 6.86, 95 % CI = 1.21-38.93). Thematic analysis revealed four themes surrounding the perceived reasons for veterinarians' overprescribing of antibiotics: (i) knowledge, (ii) attitudes, (iii) barriers, and (iv) rules and regulations. The study findings will aid in the development of strategies to improve antibiotic use in dairy farming and educational initiatives looking to enhance the communication between veterinarians and farmers about judicious use of antibiotics.

Should Graphic Warning Labels Proposed for Cigarette Packages Sold in the United States Mention the Food and Drug Administration?

INTRODUCTION: Under the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to implement graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packages. Neither the original labels proposed by the FDA nor the revised labels include a source to indicate sponsorship of the warnings. This study tests the potential impact of adding a sponsor to the content of GWLs. METHODS: We recruited adult smokers (N = 245) and middle-school youth (N = 242) from low-income areas in the Northeastern US. We randomly assigned participants to view one of three versions of the original FDA-proposed warning labels in a between-subjects experiment: no sponsor, "US Food and Drug Administration," or "American Cancer Society" sponsor. We tested the effect of varying sponsorship on source attribution and source credibility. RESULTS: Compared to unsponsored labels, FDA sponsorship increased source attributions that the FDA sponsored the labels among both middle-school, largely nonsmoking youth and adult smokers. However, sponsorship had no effect on source credibility among either population. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that adding FDA as the source is likely to boost source credibility judgments, at least in the short term; though doing so would not appear to have adverse effects on credibility judgments. As such, our data are largely consistent with the Tobacco Control Act's provisions that allow, but do not require, FDA sponsorship on the labels. IMPLICATIONS: This study addresses the FDA's regulatory efforts by informing the possible design and content of future cigarette warning labels. Our results do not offer compelling evidence that adding the FDA name on GWLs will directly increase source credibility. Future work may test more explicit FDA source labeling and continue to examine the credibility of tobacco message content among high-priority populations.

Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research.

Tobacco use and the associated consequences are much more prevalent among low-SES populations in the U.S. However, tobacco-based research often does not include these harder-to-reach populations. This paper compares the effectiveness and drawbacks of three methods of recruiting low-SES adult smokers in the Northeast. From a 5-year, [funding blinded] grant about impacts of graphic warning labels on tobacco products, three separate means of recruiting low-SES adult smokers emerged: 1) in person in the field with a mobile lab vehicle, 2) in person in the field with tablet computers, and 3) online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We compared each of these methods in terms of the resulting participant demographics and the "pros" and "cons" of each approach including quality control, logistics, cost, and engagement. Field-based methods (with a mobile lab or in person with a tablet) yielded a greater proportion of disadvantaged participants who could be biochemically verified as current smokers-45% of the field-based sample had an annual income of <$10,000 compared to 16% of the MTurk sample; 40-45% of the field-based sample did not complete high school compared to 2.6% of the MTurk sample. MTurk-based recruitment was substantially less expensive to operate (1/14th the cost of field-based methods) was faster, and involved less logistical coordination, though was unable to provide immediate biochemical verification of current smoking status. Both MTurk and field-based methods provide access to low-SES participants-the difference is the proportion and the degree of disadvantage. For research and interventions where either inclusion considerations or external validity with low-SES populations is critical, especially the most disadvantaged, our research supports the use of field-based methods. It also highlights the importance of adequate funding and time to enable the recruitment and participation of these harder-to-reach populations.

Independent or synergistic? Effects of varying size and using pictorial images in tobacco health warning labels.

INTRODUCTION: Legal challenges have blocked the implementation of large, pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) in the U.S. In light of future legal questions the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may face in proposing alternative HWLs, we examined whether less restrictive HWL versions on the front of packs-smaller HWLs and/or text-only HWLs that do not include pictorial imagery-may be sufficient to promote cognitive and affective outcomes associated with smoking cessation. METHODS: We recruited low-income smokers in two separate experiments through field-based recruitment methods (Study 1, N = 497) or Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (Study 2, N = 495). In both studies, we randomly assigned participants to a no-HWL control condition or one of four HWL conditions in a 2 (pictorial vs. text-only) × 2 (50% vs. 30% size) between-subjects design. RESULTS: Relative to text-only HWLs, pictorial HWLs increased negative affect but not risk belief acceptance, cognitive elaboration about smoking harms, or quit intentions. The 50% HWLs increased quit intentions relative to the control condition in both studies. The 50% HWLs also outperformed the 30% HWLs in promoting quit intentions in Study 2. Subsequent analyses revealed that this effect in Study 2 may have been driven by the 50% HWLs strengthening the relationship between risk-related thoughts and intentions, although there was no evidence for this pattern in Study 1. We found no evidence for interaction effects between the pictorial and size manipulations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that 50% HWLs, whether pictorial or text-only, can encourage low-income smokers to consider quitting under some conditions.

Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers.

The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies' free speech without sufficiently advancing the government's public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government's compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

A Pilot Study to Increase the Efficiency of HIV Outreach Testing Through the Use of Timely and Geolocated HIV Viral Load Surveillance Data.

BACKGROUND: Eliminating HIV transmission in a population necessitates identifying population reservoirs of HIV infection and subgroups most likely to transmit. HIV viral load is the single most important predictor of HIV transmission. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether a public health practice pilot project based on community viral load resulted in increases in the proportion of time spent testing in high viral load areas (process measure) and 3 outcome measures-the number and percent of overall HIV diagnoses, new diagnoses, and high viral load positives-in one mid-Atlantic US city with a severe HIV epidemic. METHODS: The evaluation was conducted during three, 3-month periods for 3 years and included the use of community viral load, global positioning system tracking data, and statistical testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot project. RESULTS: The proportion of time spent outreach testing in high viral load areas (69%-84%, P < 0.001) and the overall number and percent of HIV positives ((60 (3%) to 127 (6%), P < 0.001) significantly increased for 3 years. The number and percent of new diagnoses (3 (0.1%) to 6 (0.2%)) and high viral load positives (5 (0.2%) to 9 (0.4%)) increased, but the numbers were too small for statistical testing. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that using community viral load to increase the efficiency of HIV outreach testing is feasible and may be effective in identifying more HIV positives. The pilot project provides a model for other public health practice demonstration projects.