The Impact of The Real Cost Vaping and Smoking Ads across Tobacco Products.

INTRODUCTION: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents (ages 13-17 years) from a probability-based panel. In a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assigned adolescents to view one of four videos online: (1) a smoking prevention video ad from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) The Real Cost campaign, (2) a neutral control video about smoking, (3) a vaping prevention video ad from The Real Cost campaign, or (4) a neutral control video about vaping. We present effect sizes as Cohen's d, standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads led to more negative attitudes toward vaping compared with control (d = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.53), while exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). Turning to spillover effects, exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads led to less susceptibility to vaping (d = -0.34, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.12), more negative attitudes toward vaping (d = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.65) and higher perceived likelihood of harm from vaping (d = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.48), compared with control. Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This experiment found evidence of beneficial spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes and found no detrimental effects of vaping prevention ads on smoking outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Using a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents, we found beneficial evidence of spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes, which is promising since it suggests that smoking prevention campaigns may have the additional benefit of reducing both smoking and vaping among adolescents. Additionally, we found that vaping prevention campaigns did not elicit unintended consequences on smoking-related outcomes, an important finding given concerns that vaping prevention campaigns could drive youth to increase or switch to using combustible cigarettes instead of vaping.

Adolescents' Understanding of Smoking and Vaping Risk Language: Cognitive Interviews to Inform Scale Development.

INTRODUCTION: Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents' interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were 20 adolescents, ages 13-17 years from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews. RESULTS: Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (eg, "will" instead of "could"). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as "harmful" and "dangerous" over "risky," which was viewed as easy to discount. The term "negative effects" was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than "health effects." Adolescents said that the term "vape" was preferable to "e-cigarette," and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused PME measure for tobacco and vaping prevention.

Reactions to messages about smoking, vaping and COVID-19: two national experiments.

INTRODUCTION: The pace and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with ongoing efforts by health agencies to communicate harms, have created a pressing need for data to inform messaging about smoking, vaping, and COVID-19. We examined reactions to COVID-19 and traditional health harms messages discouraging smoking and vaping. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 810 US adults recruited online in May 2020. All participated in a smoking message experiment and a vaping message experiment, presented in a random order. In each experiment, participants viewed one message formatted as a Twitter post. The experiments adopted a 3 (traditional health harms of smoking or vaping: three harms, one harm, absent) × 2 (COVID-19 harms: one harm, absent) between-subjects design. Outcomes included perceived message effectiveness (primary) and constructs from the Tobacco Warnings Model (secondary: attention, negative affect, cognitive elaboration, social interactions). RESULTS: Smoking messages with traditional or COVID-19 harms elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging smoking than control messages without these harms (all p <0.001). However, including both traditional and COVID-19 harms in smoking messages had no benefit beyond including either alone. Smoking messages affected Tobacco Warnings Model constructs and did not elicit more reactance than control messages. Smoking messages also elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping. Including traditional harms in messages about vaping elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping (p <0.05), but including COVID-19 harms did not. CONCLUSIONS: Messages linking smoking with COVID-19 may hold promise for discouraging smoking and may have the added benefit of also discouraging vaping.

The impact of cigarette pack anti-littering messages.

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco butts are the most littered item worldwide and pose a critical environmental and public health hazard. Given the positive impact of required graphic warnings on smoking, we sought to assess the impact of a policy requiring cigarette pack anti-littering messages on smokers' littering intentions. METHODS: We randomly assigned US adult smokers (n = 719) to receive labels on the side of their cigarette packs for three weeks: anti-littering messages or messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke. RESULTS: Anti-littering messages elicited higher intentions to refrain from littering in the next month compared to chemical messages (p < .05). Anti-littering messages also led to increased knowledge about cigarette butts being the most common form of litter, the number of conversations about littering, and thinking about the proper disposal of cigarettes (all p < .05). Finally, smoking from packs labeled with anti-littering messages led to fewer weeks littering from car windows compared to packs labeled with chemical messages (p < .05), but did not affect completely refraining from littering cigarette butts. Mediators of the messages' impact on littering intentions were thinking about proper cigarette butt disposal and perceived message effectiveness (both p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Policies requiring anti-littering messages on cigarette packs would raise awareness about the problem of cigarette butt litter and bolster intentions to not litter.