Unmet basic needs and health intervention effectiveness in low-income populations.

In the face of unmet basic needs, low SES adults are less likely to obtain needed preventive health services. The study objective was to understand how these hardships may cluster and how the effectiveness of different health-focused interventions might vary across vulnerable population sub-groups with different basic needs profiles. From June 2010-2012, a random sample of low-income adult callers to Missouri 2-1-1 completed a cancer risk assessment and received up to 3 health referrals for needed services (mammography, pap testing, colonoscopy, HPV vaccination, smoking cessation and smoke-free home policies). Participants received either a verbal referral only (N=365), verbal referral+tailored print reminder (N=372), or verbal referral+navigator (N=353). Participants reported their unmet basic needs at baseline and contacts with health referrals at 1-month post-intervention. We examined latent classes of unmet basic needs using SAS. Logistic regression examined the association between latent classes and contacting a health referral, by intervention condition. A 3 class solution best fit the data. For participants with relatively more unmet needs (C2) and those with money needs (C3), the navigator intervention was more effective than the tailored or verbal referral only conditions in leading to health referrals contacts. For participants with fewer unmet basic needs (C1), the tailored intervention was as effective as the navigator intervention. The distribution and nature of unmet basic needs in this sample of low-income adults was heterogeneous, and those with the greatest needs benefitted most from a more intensive navigator intervention in helping them seek needed preventive health services.

Examining Interpretations of Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Among U.S. Youth and Adults.

Few studies have examined how diverse populations interpret warning labels. This study examined interpretations of 9 graphic cigarette warning labels (image plus text) proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration among a convenience sample of youth (ages 13-17) and adults (18+) across the United States. Participants (N = 1,571) completed a cross-sectional survey. Participants were asked to select 1 of 3 plausible interpretations (1 preferred vs. 2 alternative) created by the research team about the particular consequence of smoking addressed in each warning label. Participants also rated each label for novelty, counterarguing, perceived effectiveness, and harm. Smokers reported their thoughts of quitting, self-efficacy, and motivation to quit. Although at least 70% of the sample chose the preferred interpretation for 7 of 9 labels, only 13% of participants chose all 9 preferred interpretations. The odds of selecting the preferred interpretation were lower among African Americans, among those with less education, and for labels perceived as being more novel. Smokers reported greater counterarguing and less perceived effectiveness and harms than nonsmokers, but results were not consistent across all labels and interpretations. The alternative interpretations of cigarette warning labels were associated with lower perceived effectiveness and lower perceived harms of smoking, both of which are important for motivating quit attempts.

Reactions to FDA-Proposed Graphic Warning Labels Affixed to U.S. Smokers' Cigarette Packs.

INTRODUCTION: Graphic warning labels have been shown to be more effective than text-only labels in increasing attention and perceived health risks, but most U.S. studies have involved single exposures in laboratory or Internet settings. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample (N = 202) of U.S. adult smokers from population subgroups with higher rates of smoking and smoking-related deaths who had participated in a larger survey about graphic warning labels. Participants were randomized to get 1 of 9 graphic + text labels or a text-only label. Research staff affixed a warning label sticker to participants' cigarette pack(s) at enrollment. Color graphic labels covered slightly more than the lower half of packs. Black and white labels of current U.S. text-only warnings covered the existing side warning to prompt attention to the label (i.e., attention control). Participants received extra stickers of the same label for subsequent packs, and completed 3 telephone interviews in 1 week. RESULTS: Participants reported low avoidance (<34%) and consistent use of the stickers (91%). Smokers consistently paid more attention to graphic than text-only labels. Only 5 of the 9 graphic warning labels were significantly associated with greater thoughts of health risks. Thinking about quitting and stopping smoking did not differ by label. Qualitative data illustrated differences in the "stickiness," self-referencing, and counterarguments of graphic warning labels. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. smokers' reactions to graphic warning labels on their own packs were similar to other, more controlled studies. Qualitative findings underscore the need for warning labels that encourage self-referential processing without increasing defensive reactions.

Basic needs, stress and the effects of tailored health communication in vulnerable populations.

This study examined whether unmet basic needs (food, housing, personal and neighborhood safety, money for necessities) and perceived stress affect recall of and response to a tailored print intervention one month later. Participants (N = 372) were adults who had called 2-1-1 Missouri between June 2010 and June 2012. A series of path analyses using Mplus were conducted to explore the relationships among basic needs, perceived stress, number of health referrals received in a tailored intervention, recalling the intervention and contacting a health referral. Participants were mainly women (85%) and African-American (59%) with a mean age of 42.2 years (SD = 13.3; range 19-86); 41% had annual household income <$10 000. Unmet basic needs were positively associated with increased levels of perceived stress, which, in turn, were negatively associated with recalling the intervention and calling any of the health referrals provided. Tailored printed interventions may be less effective in populations with acute unmet basic needs. More broadly, the effectiveness of minimal contact behavioral interventions might be enhanced by simultaneous efforts to address unmet basic needs.

Perceptions of the US National Tobacco Quitline Among Adolescents and Adults: A Qualitative Study, 2012-2013.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco quitlines are critical components of comprehensive tobacco control programs. However, use of the US National Tobacco Quitline (1-800-QUIT-NOW) is low. Promoting quitlines on cigarette warning labels may increase call volume and smoking cessation rates but only if smokers are aware of, and receptive to, quitline services. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with a diverse subset (n = 159) of adolescent (14-17 y) and adult (≥18 y) participants of a larger quantitative survey about graphic cigarette warning labels (N = 1,590). A convenience sample was recruited from schools and community organizations in 6 states. Interviews lasted 30 to 45 minutes and included questions to assess basic knowledge and perceptions of the quitline number printed on the warning labels. Data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: available services, caller characteristics, quitline service provider characteristics, and logistics. Participants were generally knowledgeable about quitline services, including the provision of telephone-based counseling. However, some adolescents believed that quitlines provide referrals to "rehab." Quitline callers are perceived as highly motivated - even desperate - to quit. Few smokers were interested in calling the quitline, but some indicated that they might call if they were unable to quit independently. It was generally recognized that quitline services are or should be free, confidential, and operated by governmental or nonprofit agencies, possibly using tobacco settlement funds. CONCLUSION: Future marketing efforts should raise awareness of the nature and benefits of quitline services to increase use of these services and, consequently, reduce tobacco use, improve public health, and reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

What would help low-income families? Results from a North American survey of 2-1-1 helpline professionals.

Almost half of young American children live in low-income families, many with unmet needs that negatively impact health and life outcomes. Understanding which needs, proactively addressed, would most improve their lives would allow maternal and child health practitioners and social service providers to generate collaborative solutions with the potential to affect health in childhood and throughout the life course. 2-1-1 referral helplines respond to over 16 million inquiries annually, including millions of low-income parents seeking resources. Because 2-1-1 staff members understand the availability of community resources, we conducted an online survey to determine which solutions staff believed held most potential to improve the lives of children in low-income families. Information and referral specialists, resource managers, and call center directors (N = 471) from 44 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada ranked the needs of 2-1-1 callers with children based on which needs, if addressed, would help families most. Childcare (32%), parenting (29%), and child health/health care (23%) were rated most important. Across all childcare dimensions (e.g. quality affordable care, special needs care), over half of the respondents rated community resources inadequate. Findings will help practitioners develop screeners for needs assessment, prioritize resource referrals, and advocate for community resource development.

Promoting Health by Addressing Basic Needs: Effect of Problem Resolution on Contacting Health Referrals.

Members of vulnerable populations have heightened needs for health services. One advantage of integrating health risk assessment and referrals into social service assistance systems such as 2-1-1 is that such systems help callers resolve problems in other areas (e.g., housing). Callers to 2-1-1 in Missouri (N= 1,090) with at least one behavioral risk factor or cancer screening need were randomly assigned to one of three health referral interventions: verbal referrals only, verbal referrals + a tailored mailed reminder, or verbal referrals + telephone health navigator. After 1 month, we assessed whether the nonhealth problems that prompted the 2-1-1 call had been resolved. Logistic regression estimated effects of having the problem resolved on calling a health referral. Callers were predominantly female (85%) and had a high school education or less (61%); nearly half (47%) had incomes under $10,000. The most common service requests were for utility assistance (35%), home/family problems (23%), and rent/mortgage assistance (12%). At follow-up, 38% of callers reported that all problems prompting their 2-1-1 call had been resolved, and 24% reported calling a health referral. Resolving all problems prompting the 2-1-1 call was associated with a higher odds of contacting a health referral (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.05]) compared to people whose problems were not resolved. Multifaceted interventions that help meet non-health-related needs and provide support in reaching health-related goals may promote health in vulnerable populations.

Getting help from 2-1-1: A statewide study of referral outcomes.

The 2-1-1 information and referral helpline connects economically vulnerable Americans with needed health and social services in their communities. This longitudinal study followed a random sample of 2-1-1 callers in Missouri (n=1,235) to determine the results of the referrals they received. One month after calling 2-1-1, most remembered receiving (93%), tried contacting (91%) and reached (82%) at least one referral they received. Far fewer (36%) received assistance from the referral, ranging from 17% for housing assistance to 67% for food assistance. Callers receiving assistance were much more likely than those not receiving assistance to report at 1-month follow-up that their problem had been resolved (OR=3.0, 95% CI=2.2, 4.1), although this was less true among callers with multiple unmet basic needs. Findings explain how 2-1-1 helps callers resolve problems, but also identifies missed opportunities in the current system. Future research could elucidate how 2-1-1 callers resolve problems and find ways to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged 2-1-1 callers.

Speaking out about physical harms from tobacco use: response to graphic warning labels among American Indian/Alaska Native communities.

OBJECTIVE: This study is the first to explore the impact of graphic cigarette labels with physical harm images on members of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities. The aim of this article is to investigate how AI/AN respond to particular graphic warning labels. METHODS: The parent study recruited smokers, at-risk smokers and non-smokers from three different age groups (youths aged 13-17 years, young adults aged 18-24 years and adults aged 25+ years) and five population subgroups with high smoking prevalence or smoking risk. Using nine graphic labels, this study collected participant data in the field via an iPad-administered survey and card sorting of graphic warning labels. This paper reports on findings for AI/AN participants. RESULTS: After viewing graphic warning labels, participants rated their likelihood of talking about smoking risks to friends, parents and siblings higher than their likelihood of talking to teachers and doctors. Further, this study found that certain labels (eg, the label of the toddler in the smoke cloud) made them think about their friends and family who smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Given the influence of community social networks on health beliefs and attitudes, health communication using graphic warning labels could effect change in the smoking habits of AI/AN community members. Study findings suggest that graphic labels could serve as stimuli for conversations about the risks of smoking among AI/AN community members, and could be an important element of a peer-to-peer smoking cessation effort.