The impact of "pinkwashed" alcohol advertisements on attitudes and beliefs: A randomized experiment with US adults.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of alcohol advertisements related to breast cancer awareness or charities (i.e., pinkwashed ads) on attitudes and beliefs. METHODS: In 2023, an online experiment randomized 602 US adults to view three pinkwashed ads for beer, wine, and liquor, or three standard ads for the same products. RESULTS: Breast cancer risk perceptions (average differential effect [ADE] = 0.03; p = 0.58)) and intentions to purchase the advertised product (ADE = -0.01, p = 0.95) did not differ by ad type. When informed about the link between alcohol and breast cancer, participants who viewed pinkwashed ads reported the ads were more misleading (ADE = 0.51, p < 0.001) and had stronger support for requiring alcohol breast cancer warnings (ADE = 0.23, p < 0.001). The pinkwashed ads for beer (but not for wine or liquor) led to greater: perceived product healthfulness (ADE = 0.16, p = 0.03), perceived social responsibility of the company (ADE = 0.18, p = 0.02), and favorable brand attitudes (ADE = 0.14, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Informing the public about pinkwashing increases perceptions of misleadingness and support for alcohol policies. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Exposing the industry practice of pinkwashing could be a promising theme for campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption and increase support for alcohol policies.

"I feel like it gives me what I need to know": A qualitative study on adolescent perceptions of two contraceptive decision aids.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how adolescents perceive two commonly used contraceptive decision aids and which elements adolescents identified as most important to them. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study of adolescents' perceptions of two decision aids, Your Birth Control Choices designed by the Reproductive Health Access Project and Birth Control: What's Important to You? designed by Power to Decide for Bedsider.org. We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 adolescents (aged 15-19 years) who were assigned female sex at birth and attended a single clinic in North Carolina. Interview questions addressed the decision aids' aesthetic design, informational content, inclusivity, and comprehensibility. We transcribed and analyzed interviews using Dedoose software. We developed a codebook using a combination of a priori and inductive codes followed by content analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: All participants agreed that both decision aids could be helpful with contraceptive decision-making and with patient-provider discussions. However, some phrasing and descriptions of contraceptive methods were confusing. Participants preferred realistic imagery, clear explanations of side effects, and details on method use. Participants expressed a preference for the information contained in the detailed Reproductive Health Access Project decision aid, while most favored the aesthetic design and layout of the Bedsider decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: Although adolescents expressed sentiments of increased knowledge and empowerment after reviewing the decision aids, this study suggests neither decision aid completely meets adolescent needs and preferences. Additional adaptations are necessary to create adolescent-centered contraceptive decision aids. IMPLICATIONS: Adolescents in this study found two contraceptive decision aids as useful adjuncts to conversations with providers. The decision aids improved contraceptive knowledge and may facilitate decision-making. However, neither of the studied decision aids fully met the perceived needs of adolescents. Future adaptations or designs should include additional adolescent-centered content.

Optimising messages and images for e-cigarette warnings.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to have a single addiction warning, but many other health harms are associated with vaping and warnings grow stale over time. We aimed to develop new warning messages and images to discourage e-cigarette use. METHODS: Participants were 1629 US adults who vaped or smoked. We randomised each participant to evaluate 7 of 28 messages on newly developed warning themes (metals exposure, DNA mutation, cardiovascular problems, chemical exposure, lung damage, impaired immunity, addiction), and the current FDA-required warning (total of 8 messages). Then, participants evaluated images of hazards (eg, metal), internal harms (eg, organ damage) or people experiencing harms. RESULTS: Regarding intended effects, new warning themes all discouraged vaping more than the current FDA-required warning (all p<0.001), led to greater negative affect (all p<0.001) and led to more anticipated social interactions (all p<0.001). The most discouraging warnings were about toxic metals exposure. Regarding unintended effects, the new themes led to more stigma against people who vape (6 of 7 themes, p<0.001) and led to a greater likelihood of thinking vaping is more harmful than smoking (all 7 themes, p<0.001), although unintended effects were smaller than intended effects. Images of harms (internal or people experiencing) discouraged vaping more than images of hazards (all p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Vaping warning policies should communicate a broader range of hazards and harms, beyond addiction, to potentially increase awareness of health harms. Images of internal harm or people experiencing harms may be particularly effective at discouraging vaping.

Terms tobacco users employ to describe e-cigarette aerosol.

BACKGROUND: The scientific term for the substance people inhale and exhale from a vaping device is 'aerosol', but whether the public uses this term is unclear. To inform tobacco control communication efforts, we sought to understand what tobacco users call e-cigarette aerosols. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 1628 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both (dual users). In an online survey, conducted in spring 2021, participants described what 'people inhale and exhale when they vape', using an open-ended and then a closed-ended response scale. Participants then evaluated warning statements, randomly assigned to contain the term 'aerosol' or 'vapor' (eg, 'E-cigarette aerosol/vapor contains nicotine, which can lead to seizures'). RESULTS: In open-ended responses, tobacco users most commonly provided the terms 'vapor' (31%) and 'smoke' (23%) but rarely 'aerosol' (<1%). In closed-ended responses, the most commonly endorsed terms were again 'vapor' (57%) and 'smoke' (22%) but again infrequently 'aerosol' (2%). In closed-ended responses, use of the term 'vapor' was more common than other terms among people who were older; white; gay, lesbian or bisexual; college educated; or vape users only (all p<0.05). In the experiment, warnings using the terms 'aerosol' and 'vapor' were equally effective (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The public rarely uses the term 'aerosol' to describe e-cigarette output, potentially complicating educational efforts that use the term. Future studies should explore public knowledge and understanding of the terms 'aerosol' and the more popular 'vapor' to better inform vaping risk communication.