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.

Perceived threat and fear responses to e-cigarette warning label messages: Results from 16 focus groups with U.S. youth and adults.

AIMS: A warning on e-cigarette packaging is one way the U.S. government can inform the public of known harms of e-cigarette use. Currently, the only required warning on these products is: "WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical." This exploratory study aims to inform potential future investigations and FDA decisions regarding alternative warnings that may generate fear in addition to being intentionally informational. METHOD: Data were obtained from responses by 16 online focus groups with adult (N = 47, age range = 18-64) and youth (N = 32, age range 14-16) participants with various smoking and vaping experiences. We showed each focus group a set of hypothetical e-cigarette warning labels to determine how they respond to currently existing public statements that communicate information on the toxicity of ingredients in e-cigarettes, potential health risks, addiction to nicotine, and the uncertainty of the science regarding health effects of using these products. The focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were subjected to a multiphase coding process to identify common response themes. Codes derived from the Extended Parallel Processing Model were then applied to understand impact of potentially fear-inducing language by warning category and age group. RESULTS: For adults, all warnings-except those about addiction-gave rise to spontaneous danger control (intended) responses, such as quit intentions. Warnings highlighting cognitive and uncertain effects may be particularly promising for adult consumers of tobacco products because both gengerated danger control and response efficacy without evidence of fear control. However, responses also suggest that warnings risk discouraging some adults who use combustible cigarettes from transitioning to e-cigarettes for harm reduction. For youth, while evidence of response efficacy and danger control emerged among youth exposed to messages in all warning categories but one-addiction-unproductive reactions indicative of fear control were also prevalent among youth respondent across most warning types. On average, youth were more skeptical than adults about the harms of using e-cigarettes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Implications of study findings for the development of future effective e-cigarette warning messages are explored.

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.

Youth and Young Adult-targeted E-cigarette Warnings and Advertising Messages: An Experiment with Young Adults in the US.

Warnings specifically focused on harm to younger users have been understudied in vaping warning research, even while vaping products may appeal specifically to a younger population through implicit advertising strategies. This study examined how youth and young adult-focused e-cigarette health warning messages and implicit advertising strategies influence affective responses, risk perceptions, cognitive elaboration about e-cigarette harms, and willingness to vape in the future. We recruited young adults (who, at the time, were not smoking combustible cigarettes) aged 18-25 to participate in an online survey experiment with a 3 (warning label type: current FDA/youth and young adult risk-focused/none) × 3 (advertising health message strategy: explicit/implicit/none) + 3 (non-vaping products control) design. The results show a main effect for warning such that both FDA and targeted warnings increased negative affect and decreased positive affect compared to no warning. Moreover, the youth and young adult-focused warning boosted youth-specific harm beliefs and cognitive elaboration relative to control and the FDA warning, which did not differ from one another. Implicit health messages produced greater positive affect relative to explicit messages and no message, but the ad strategy manipulations did not influence other outcomes. While the population studied here with a single exposure reported no effects of either manipulation on willingness to vape, previous research has associated similar emotions and cognitions with lowered intentions to vape. Regulatory bodies should consider further exploration of vaping warnings that emphasize youth and young adult-specific harms to educate young people about relevant risks.

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.