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.

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.

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.

Effects of 30% and 50% Cigarette Pack Graphic Warning Labels on Visual Attention, Negative Affect, Quit Intentions, and Smoking Susceptibility among Disadvantaged Populations in the United States.

Introduction: Though the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) calls for the implementation of large graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette boxes, the courts have blocked the implementation of 50% labels in the United States. We conducted an experiment to explore whether changing the size of GWLs is associated with changes in visual attention, negative affect, risk beliefs, and behavioral intentions. Method: We recruited adult smokers (N = 238) and middle-school youth (N = 237) throughout the state of New York in May 2016. We randomly assigned participants to one of three between-subject conditions (no GWL [control], 30% GWL, 50% GWL). Results: Adult and youth participants looked at the GWLs longer when the GWL covered 50% versus 30% of the pack's front. Increasing GWL size from 30% to 50% did not influence negative affect or risk beliefs, though both GWL sizes increased negative affect relative to the no-GWL control group. Exposure to 50% GWLs increased adult smokers' intentions to quit compared to no-GWL, but smokers exposed to 30% GWLs did not differ from control. There were no differences between 50% GWLs, 30% GWLs, and control on youth smoking susceptibility. Conclusions: Findings provide some evidence of the benefits of a 50% versus 30% GWL covering the front of the pack for adult smokers and at-risk youth from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds-though not on all outcomes. Implications: This research shows that 30% GWLs on cigarette packages increase negative affect relative to packages without front-of-package GWLs. Larger GWLs on cigarette packages (50% vs. 30%) increase visual attention to the warning and its pictorial content among low-SES smokers and at-risk youth but do not further increase negative affect. A 50% GWL increased adults' quit intention compared to no GWL at all, but we were underpowered to detect modest differences in quit intentions between a 50% and 30% GWL. Future work should thus continue to explore the boundary conditions under which relatively larger GWLs influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.