LGBTQ+ young adults’ engagement with culturally tailored anti-tobacco communications: A qualitative formative evaluation to inform experimental research

Presenter: Joanne G. Patterson (1,2) 

Co Authors: Alysha C. Ennis (1), Emma Jankowski (1), Grace Turk (1), Ashley Meadows (1), Caitlin Miller (1), Hayley Curran (2), Sydney Galusha (1)

  1. The Ohio State University College of Public Health
  2. Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University James-Comprehensive Cancer Center

 

Introduction:

  • Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer young adults (LGBTQ+ YA) report high rates of cigarette smoking and nicotine vaping (1-6).
  • Mass-reach anti-tobacco communications can increase public knowledge of tobacco harms and decrease use, yet they may not engage LGBTQ+ YA (7-17).
  • No studies describe effective anti-tobacco message framing for SGM and non-SGM YA engaged in dual use, though understanding these nuances is important for developing inclusive anti-tobacco communications.
  • We conducted a formative evaluation to inform culturally targeted (CT) anti-tobacco communications. 

 

Methods:

  • We reviewed existing CT anti-tobacco campaigns before conducting in-depth focus groups of N=22 LGBTQ+ YA (18-35) ever dual users to assess best practices for message design (visuals, semantics).
  • We applied findings to develop 9 CT and 9 non-targeted (NT) messages, which an expert panel (N=7) of LGBTQ+ community partners, scientists, and LGBTQ+ YA reviewed.
  • Messages are being experimentally tested in a remote eye tracking study with LGBTQ+ YA.

 

Results:

  • LGBTQ+ YA were skeptical of CT anti-tobacco campaigns featuring stereotypical representation of LGBTQ+ individuals and questioned the motive of cultural targeting,
    • “Are you genuinely […] advertising to me, or are you advertising to some, like, monolithic LGBT group that you think exists?” (FG34, Queer, he/him).
  • Communications featuring naturally posed models and a diversity of LGBTQ+ people engaged participants more than overly posed models and oversaturated colors:
    • If I was scrolling, [the natural ad] would actually make me stop… but the second I see those saturated blue, purple looks, I’m like “That’s an ad”, and I just scroll right past it.” (FG23, Bisexual, he/him/she/her).
  • Personal stories were well received:
    • “I also like the quotes, and that it has the people’s name there. It makes it feel more personal…they’re reaching out to you with their story.” (FG21, Bisexual, they/them).
  • Unclear visuals and slogans were negatively received.
  • We applied findings to develop CT anti-tobacco communications featuring naturalistic LGBTQ+ models of diverse races, ethnicities, and genders. We paired harms messaging with personal stories and subtle cultural cues (e.g., “our health”, pronouns). These are shown at the bottom of this post.
  • The expert panel confirmed that messages were culturally and scientifically relevant.  
Theme  Code  Definition 
Ad Design     
  Font  Participants discuss liking or disliking font choices/typography 
  Layout  Participants discuss liking or disliking spacing, layout, or white space. 
  Colors  Participants discuss liking or disliking colors 
  Graphic type  Participants discuss liking or disliking the type of graphic (e.g. photograph vs. illustration/cartoon) 
  Brand Identity  Discusses that the ad design matches or does not match the product being sold given what is known/presumed about a brand (e.g., of “not matching” brand identity:  Kandy Pens ad image of women/men being intimate and product not featured; “I like that they used their brand name as kind of like a play on words”). 

 

This ad tells me nothing about what this company is or does, or anything.” 

  Creativity  Participants discuss whether an ad does or does not feel creative or clever with respect to its design (e.g., Bud Light ad where “L G B T” were highlighted).  
  Aesthetically pleasing  Participants discuss whether  an ad is overall aesthetically pleasing or not 
Ad Content: Imagery     
  Imagery – Representative  Participants discuss feeling though the images in ad represent them/people they know (i.e., looks like me, acts like me) or feature real representation of LGBTQ people generally. 
  Imagery – Liking  General like code for imagery  
  Imagery – Disliking  General dislike code for imagery  
  Imagery – Subtle/Overt  Participants discuss the subtlety or overtness of the LGBTQ elements within an ad 
  Imagery – Pride Flags and rainbows  Discusses the liking or disliking of LGBTQ flags and colors within ads 
  Imagery – Who  Participants describe liking or disliking having posed (“fake”)   vs. more natural looking (“real”) models in the ad. 
Ad Content: Language     
  Language – Word choice  Participants discuss liking or disliking word choice 
  Language – Efficacy of absolute risk vs. self-efficacy messaging  Participants discuss liking or disliking absolute risk messages as compared to self-efficacy messages 
  Language – Slang use  Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of slang in an ad (e.g. words like “slay”, “queen”) 
  Language- Humor  Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of humor in advertisements 
  Language- slogans or taglines  Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of slogans, taglines, or catch phrases in an advertisement (e.g., “Quitting isn’t a perfect process” or “Made with Pride”) 
Ad Content: Representativeness     
  Inclusivity  Participants discuss whether or not the ad is representative of LGBTQ identities  

(L – G – B – T  – Q – NB)  

  Stereotyping  Participants discuss feeling as though the ads represent stereotypes of the LGBTQ community, in imagery, language, content, etc.  
  Intersectionality  Participants discuss whether or not ads are intersectional in terms of identities that are not within the LGBTQ umbrella such as racial identity or class status 
  Authenticity  Participants discuss feeling as though ads are inauthentic/authentic; (e.g., feeling like ads have been created by those not within the LGBTQ community/ feeling as though ads have been created by those within the LGBTQ community 

 

(authentic ads may take into consideration the feelings, wishes and traditions towards the LGBTQ community) 

  Fetishization of LGBTQ community  Participants discuss ads sexualizing or fetishizing the LGBTQ community 
  Target Audience  Discusses whom they believe an ad was targeted towards 
  Normalization/Visibility  Participants discuss ads being used to normalize or make visible LGBTQ people and relationships. Word “representative” might be used by participants. 
Context     
  Brand partnerships  Participants discuss liking or disliking the inclusion of brand partnerships with LGBTQ organizations (e.g. GLADD, Rainbow Railroad) 
  Ad placement   Participants discuss where they see culturally-targeted ads (e.g. social media, malls, TV) 
  Outdated/Current  Discusses whether the language, content, and/or design of ad feels outdated or current (e.g., compared to the current time period/context). 
  Rainbow capitalism  Participants discuss only seeing culturally-targeted ads during Pride Month, or being performative/used just to make money 
  Pandering  Participants discuss feeling as though companies are trying to please the LGBTQ community by acting in a way they believe the LGBTQ community would want them to act 
  Corny/Trite  Participants discuss advertisements feeling “corny” or trying too hard. (e.g. describing things as “tumblr-core,” “white woman’s instagram,” “millennial”, “mom”) 
  Necessity  Participants discuss whether or not they view LGBTQ+ advertising as necessary/needed for LGBTQ community 
  General feelings  Participants discuss how they feel about LGBTQ culturally targeted advertising generally; whether like, dislike, or neutral 
  Personal Experience  Discusses how their personal experience influences their perception of an ad 
  Favorite  Participant discusses an ad as their favorite 
  Purchasing   Discusses buying and purchasing product advertised in the ad shown  

 

Conclusions:

  • LGBTQ+ YA were distrustful of CT communications that leveraged “stereotyped” LGBTQ+ imagery.
  • As authenticity is important to LGBTQ+ YA, co-creating CT anti-tobacco communications may enhance acceptability, engagement, and effectiveness.
  • Eye-tracking research will objectively assess the effect of CT (vs NT control) communications on engagement. 

 

Funding/Acknowledgements:

  • Thank you to all members of the Practice and Science for LGBTQ+ Health Equity Lab for their contributions.
  • This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (K99CA260718 and R00CA260718; PI: JGP), and supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Ohio State University College of Public Health. 

 

References:

  1. Ridner S, Ma J, Walker K, et al. Cigarette smoking, ENDS use and dual use among a nationalsample of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Tob Prev Cessat. 2019;5(December). doi:10.18332/tpc/114229
  2. Delahanty J, Ganz O, Hoffman L, Guillory J, Crankshaw E, Farrelly M. Tobacco use among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young adults varies by sexual and gender identity. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:161-170. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.013
  3. Fallin-Bennett A, Lisha NE, Ling PM. Other Tobacco Product Use Among Sexual Minority Young Adult Bar Patrons. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(3):327-334. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.03.006
  4. Nayak P, Salazar LF, Kota KK, Pechacek TF. Prevalence of use and perceptions of risk of novel and other alternative tobacco products among sexual minority adults: Results from an online national survey, 2014–2015. Prev Med. 2017;104:71-78. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.024
  5. Osibogun O, Taleb ZB, Bahelah R, Salloum RG, Maziak W. Correlates of poly-tobacco use among youth and young adults: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, 2013–2014. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;187:160-164. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.024
  6. Stanton CA, Bansal-Travers M, Johnson AL, et al. Longitudinal e-Cigarette and Cigarette Use Among US Youth in the PATH Study (2013–2015). JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(10):1088-1096. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz006
  7. Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Hussin A. The Influence of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):379-384. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.019
  8. Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Nonnemaker J, et al. Association Between The Real Cost Media Campaign and Smoking Initiation Among Youths — United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(02):47-50. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6602a2
  9. Sly D, Hopkins R, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(2):233-238. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.2.233
  10. Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster D, et al. Longitudinal effects of pro‐tobacco and anti‐tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):455-465. doi:10.1080/14622200600670454
  11. Siegel M. What the FDA Gets Wrong About E-Cigarettes. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-16/what-the-fda-gets-wrong-about-e-cigarettes?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner. Published March 16, 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023.
  12. Calabro KS, Khalil GE, Chen M, Perry CL, Prokhorov AV. Pilot study to inform young adults about the risks of electronic cigarettes through text messaging. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10:100224. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100224
  13. U.S National Cancer Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities | Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS). A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities; 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-22
  14. Duke JC, Farrelly MC, Alexander TN, et al. Effect of a National Tobacco Public Education Campaign on Youth’s Risk Perceptions and Beliefs About Smoking. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(5):1248-1256. doi:10.1177/0890117117720745
  15. Kranzler EC, Hornik RC. The Relationship Between Exogenous Exposure to “The Real Cost” Anti-Smoking Campaign and Campaign-Targeted Beliefs. J Health Commun. 2019;24(10):780-790. doi:10.1080/10810730.2019.1668887
  16. The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign. Published online July 21, 2023. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/real-cost-campaign/real-cost-e-cigarette-prevention-campaign#:~:text=Our%20Goal%3A%20Educate%20youth%20about,addiction%20from%20using%20e%2Dcigarettes
  17. This Free Life Campaign. Published online March 11, 2022. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/public-health-education-campaigns/free-life-campaign

 

Images Presented in Focus Groups:

 

Culturally Targeted Imagery for Eye-Tracking

 

Control Imagery for Eye-Tracking

** At this point, we are pre-publication. If you would like to see more images, please reach out to the Principal Investigator, Joanne Patterson (patterson.1191@osu.edu).

Responses to Tobacco Public Education Messages Among Young Adults: How Previous Quit Attempts and Quit Intentions Affect Message Perceptions

RESPONSES TO TOBACCO PUBLIC EDUCATION MESSAGES AMONG YOUNG ADULTS: HOW PREVIOUS QUIT ATTEMPTS AND QUIT INTENTIONS AFFECT MESSAGE PERCEPTIONS 

 

Emma Jankowski, BSPH 

Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

 

Joanne G. Patterson, PhD, MPH, MSW 

Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

 

Introduction:

  • A large proportion of young adults are using nicotine vapes and although the rate of cigarette smoking in the young adult population has decreased over time, there is still prevalent combustible use, specifically in minoritized populations (1-2).
  • Cigarette initiation is commonly in young adulthood, so interventions must address avoidance of cigarettes as well as quitting in this group (3-5).
  • Public education campaigns can effectively prevent smoking and vaping initiation among youth and encourage cessation in adults, but their effect among young adults (YA) is understudied (6-16).
  • We tested the effectiveness of messages describing the absolute and comparative risks of smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine and assessed how quit interest/attempts shaped post-exposure perceptions among YA living in the United States. 

 

Methods:

  • Participants were recruited and prescreened via Prolific and eligible participants were directed to Qualtrics for a survey
    • Eligibility criteria were: participants had to be ages 18-35 and reside in the U.S.
  • Participants were asked a series of pre-screening questions about their demographics, as well as their smoking/vaping and cessation history.
  • Participants were categorized by current smoking and vaping status for analysis.
  • Exposures were analyzed by having a quit attempt in the last 12 months versus not, as well as intention to quit within 6 months, compared to those intending to quit, but not within 6 months and those not intending to quit at all.
  • YA aged 18–35 years viewed 8 messages in one of three experimental conditions (control, absolute risk, comparative risk).
  • After viewing these messages, participants rated their message and effects perceptions in matrix-style questions, as well as rated their feelings about smoking and vaping, harm perceptions, and behavioral intentions with regards to smoking and vaping in the near future.
  • We fit unadjusted, post-exposure regression models to assess main effects of self-reported past 12-month quit attempts and quit interest on outcomes (impact perceptions; intentions to refrain from smoking/vaping in the next 3 months) among current smokers (N=750) and vapers (N=1015). 

 

Results:

Figure 1: Visual Presentation of Main Results

 

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of analytic samples 

   Current cigarette use 

(N = 750) 

Current e-cigarette use 

(N = 1,015) 

  N(%)  X2  P-value  N(%)  X2  P-value 
Race             
     BIPOC+  286 (38.60)  1.3004  0.254  372 (37.20)  6.4311  0.011 
     Non-Hispanic White  455 (61.40)  628 (62.80) 
Age             
     18-24  172 (23.21)  42.5967  0.000  369 (36.90)  11.3156  0.001 
     25-35  569 (76.79)  631 (63.10) 
Gender             
Cisgender male  353 (47.64)  14.9129  0.001  448 (44.84)  8.5379  0.014 
Cisgender female  339 (45.75)  479 (47.95) 
Transgender/NB+  49 (6.61)  72 (7.21) 
Sexual Orientation             
Heterosexual  421 (56.82)  5.7116  0.017  532 (53.25)  0.0247  0.875 
LGBQ+/Asexual  320 (43.18)  467 (46.75) 
Education             
Below a Bachelor’s Degree  471 (63.56)  14.1782  0.000  629 (62.96)  17.5895  0.000 
Bachelor’s Degree and Above   270 (36.44)  370 (37.04) 
Marital Status             
Single  321 (43.32)  19.0539  0.000  425 (42.59)  42.4531  0.000 
Partnered  256 (34.55)  388 (38.88) 
Married/Divorced  164 (22.13)  185 (18.54) 
Income             
50,000+  222 (29.96)  32.8118  0.000  283 (28.36)  19.1458  0.000 
20,000-49,999  305 (41.16)  393 (39.38) 
<20,000  214 (28.88)  322 (32.26) 
Cigarette Quit Variables             
Quit Interest (3-level)              
Yes, within the next 6 months  287 (38.27)  N/A  N/A       
Yes, but not within 6 months  262 (34.93)   
No/Don’t know  201 (26.80)   
Quit Interest (2-level)             
     Interested  549 (73.20)  N/A  N/A       
     Not Interested  201 (26.80)   
Past 12-month Quit Attempt             
     No  321 (42.80)  360.8720  0.000       
     Yes  429 (57.20)   
E-Cigarette Quit Variables             
Quit Interest (3-level)              
Yes, within the next 6 months        280 (27.59)  N/A  N/A 
Yes, but not within 6 months    320 (31.53) 
No/Don’t know    415 (40.89) 
Quit Interest (2-level)             
     Interested        600 (59.11)  N/A  N/A 
     Not Interested    415 (40.89) 
Past 12-month Quit Attempt             
     No        546 (53.85)  222.430  0.000 
     Yes    468 (46.15) 

  

Table 4b. Main effects of quit interest and quit attempts on outcomes among SMOKERS 

  PAST 12-MONTH SMOKING QUIT ATTEMPT  SMOKING QUIT INTEREST 
  No quit attempt (Ref)  Yes, made quit attempt    No quit interest (Ref)  Interested, but not within 6 months    Interested,  within 6 months     
  Mean  95% CI  Mean  95% CI  p-value (vs ref)  Mean  95% CI  Mean  95% CI  p-value (vs ref) 

 

Mean  95% CI  p-value (vs ref)  p-value (6 mos vs. 6+ month) 
Message and Effects Perceptions  
Message perceptions  3.04  (2.92, 3.17)  3.39  (3.28, 3.50)  <.001  2.92  (2.77, 3.08)  3.19  (3.05, 3.32)  .011  3.51  (3.39, 3.64)  <.001  .001 
Motivate people to quit ALL smoking and vaping  2.39  (2.25, 2.53)  2.71  (2.59, 2.83)  <0.001  2.32  (2.14, 2.49)  2.50  (2.35, 2.65)  0.126  2.82  (2.68, 2.97)  <.001  0.003 
Motivate cigarette smokers to quit  2.75  (2.62, 2.89)  3.22  (3.10, 3.34)  <0.001  2.71  (2.53, 2.88)  2.99   (2.84, 3.14)  0.017  3.27  (3.12, 3.41)  <0.001  0.009 
Motivate cigarette smokers to switch to vaping  2.74  (2.59, 2.88)  3.00  (2.88, 3.13)  0.007  2.77  (2.58, 2.95)  2.88  (2.72, 3.04)  0.372  2.98  (2.82, 3.13)  0.086  0.385 
Motivate vapers to quit   2.27  (2.13, 2.41)  2.52  (2.40, 2.64)  0.007  2.20  (2.03, 2.37)  2.34  (2.19, 2.49)  0.232  2.62  (2.48, 2.77)  <0.001  0.008 
Motivate non-users to start vaping  1.65  (1.53, 1.77)  1.89  (1.79, 2.00)  0.003  1.83  (1.67, 1.99)  1.75  (1.61, 1.89)  0.453  1.80  (1.67, 1.93)  0.792  0.588 
Motivate non-users to start smoking   1.30  (1.21, 1.38)  1.44  (1.36, 1.51)  0.020  1.46  (1.35, 1.57)  1.34  (1.24, 1.44)  0.118  1.35  (1.26, 1.44)  0.139  0.901 
Feelings about Smoking/Vaping 
Feelings toward smoking cigarettes  3.26  (3.12, 3.39)  2.96  (2.85, 3.08)  0.001  3.41  (3.24, 3.57)  3.25  (3.11, 3.40)  0.162  2.72  (2.58, 2.85)  <0.001  <0.001 
Feelings toward vaping nicotine  3.31  (2.87, 3.75)  3.50  (3.12, 3.88)  0.532  3.28  (2.72, 3.83)  3.58  (3.09, 4.07)  0.419  3.37  (2.91, 3.83)  0.798  0.539 
Harm perceptions 
Perceived harm of cigarettes to health  8.50  (8.32, 8.69)  8.65  (8.50, 8.81)  0.219  8.12  (7.89, 8.35)  8.58  (8.38, 8.78)  0.003  8.92  (8.73, 9.11)  <0.001  0.014 
Perceived harm of nicotine vapes to health  6.83  (6.57, 7.09)  6.88  (6.66, 7.11)  0.766  6.52  (6.19, 6.85)  6.73  (6.44, 7.02)  0.351  7.21  (6.94, 7.49)  0.002  0.017 
Perceived harm of vaping nicotine to health (vs smoking cigarettes)  4.85  (4.52, 5.17)  5.08  (4.79, 5.36)  0.301  5.07  (4.66, 5.48)  4.80  (4.44, 5.16)  0.329  5.08  (4.73, 5.42)  0.982  0.272 
Behavioral Intentions 
Intent to smoke cigarettes within next 3 months   1.99  (1.90, 2.08)  2.61  (2.53, 2.69)  <0.001  1.95  (1.84, 2.06)  2.13  (2.04, 2.23)  0.016  2.81  (2.72, 2.90)  <0.001  <0.001 
Intent to vape nicotine within next 3 months   2.46  (2.35, 2.57)  2.73  (2.63, 2.83)  <0.001  2.33  (2.20, 2.47)  2.50  (2.38, 2.62)  0.075  2.91  (2.80, 3.03)  <0.001  <0.001 

 

Table 4c. Main effects of quit interest and quit attempts on outcomes among VAPERS 

  PAST 12-MONTH VAPING QUIT ATTEMPT   
  No quit attempt (Ref)  Made quit attempt    No quit interest (Ref)  Interested, but not within 6 months    Interested,  within 6 months     
  Mean  95% CI  Mean  95% CI  p-value  Mean  95% CI  Mean  95% CI  p-value (vs ref)  Mean  95% CI  p-value (vs ref)  p-value (6 mos vs. 6+ month) 
Message Perceptions and Motivations 
Message perceptions  2.83 (2.44, 3.23) 3.06 (2.63, 3.49) 0.442 2.95 (2.50, 3.41) 2.84 (2.32, 3.36) 0.750 3.02 (2.47, 3.58) 0.844 0.635
Motivate people to quit ALL smoking and vaping 2.35 (2.24, 2.45) 2.48 (2.36, 2.59) 0.094 2.22 (2.10, 2.34) 2.46 (2.33,2.60) 0.007 2.62 (2.48, 2.76) <0.001 0.119
Motivate cigarette smokers to quit 3.03 (2.92, 3.13) 3.16 (3.05, 3.28) 0.091 2.94 (2.82, 3.06) 3.09 (2.95, 3.22) 0.122 3.32 (3.17, 3.47) <0.001 0.026
Motivate cigarette smokers to switch to vaping 3.16 (3.05, 3.27) 3.25 (3.13, 3.37) 0.290 3.13 (3.01, 3.26) 3.22 (3.08, 3.36) 0.360 3.29 (3.14, 3.45) 0.115 0.508
Motivate vapers to quit 2.14 (2.04, 2.24) 2.47 (2.36, 2.58) <0.001 2.08 (1.97, 2.20) 2.24 (2.11, 2.37) 0.067 2.66 (2.52, 2.80) <0.001 <0.001
Motivate non-users to start vaping 1.67 (1.57, 1.76) 1.84 (1.73, 1.94) 0.017 1.72 (1.61, 1.83) 1.71 (1.59, 1.84) 0.937 1.82 (1.69, 1.96 0.227 0.224
Motivate non-users to start smoking 1.22 (1.16, 1.28) 1.36 (1.29, 1.42) 0.002 1.28 (1.21, 1.35) 1.24 (1.16, 1.32) 0.389 1.35 (1.26, 1.43) 0.256 0.064
Feelings about Smoking/Vaping
Feelings toward smoking cigarettes 3.14 (3.03, 3.24) 3.02 (2.91, 3.13) 0.134 3.26 (3.14, 3.38) 3.09 (2.95, 3.22) 0.053 2.83 (2.69, 2.98) <0.001 0.011
Feelings toward vaping nicotine 3.71 (3.42, 4.01) 3.54 (3.22, 3.86) 0.447 3.74 (3.40, 4.08) 3.76 (3.37, 4.15) 0.945 3.32 (2.91, 3.74) 0.123 0.128
Perceived Harm
Perceived harm of cigarettes to health 8.85 (8.72, 8.98) 8.81 (8.67, 8.95) 0.679 8.65 (8.50, 8.79) 8.93 (8.76, 9.10) 0.014 8.97 (8.79, 9.15) 0.007 0.731
Perceived harm of nicotine vapes to health 5.75 (5.55, 5.95) 6.84 (6.63, 7.05) <0.001 5.62 (5.40, 5.85) 6.32 (6.06, 6.57) <0.001 7.12 (6.84, 7.39) <0.001 <0.001
Perceived harm of vaping nicotine to health (vs smoking cigarettes) 3.64 (3.38, 3.89) 4.59 (4.31, 4.86) <0.001 3.64 (3.35, 3.94) 4.18 (3.85, 4.51) 0.018 4.61 (4.25, 4.97) <0.001 0.085
Refrain Scale
Intent to refrain from smoking cigarettes within next 3 months 3.01 (2.93, 3.09) 3.27 (3.18, 3.35) <0.001 2.83 (2.74, 2.92) 3.22 (3.12, 3.32) <0.001 3.46 (3.35, 3.57) <0.001 0.002
Intent to refrain from vaping nicotine within next 3 months 1.92 (1.85, 1.99) 2.45 (2.37, 2.52) <0.001 1.86 (1.79, 1.94) 2.02 (1.94, 2.10) 0.005 2.77 (2.68, 2.86) <0.001 <0.001 

**All results are Bonferroni corrected so alpha = 0.03 

 

Conclusions:

  • Tobacco public education messages describing the absolute and comparative risks of smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine were most effective for YA who reported making a recent quit attempt, or who were interesting quitting smoking/vaping within 6 months.
  • Results suggest that YA are interested in quitting smoking/vaping and that unique message framing must be developed to engage YA across the quit continuum. 

 

Funding/Acknowledgements:

  • Thank you to all members of the Practice and Science for LGBTQ+ Health Equity Lab for their contributions.
  • This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (K99CA260718 and R00CA260718; PI: JGP), and supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Ohio State University College of Public Health. 

 

References

  1. Pierce JPLuo MMcMenamin SB, et al. Declines in cigarette smoking among US adolescents and young adults: indications of independence from e-cigarette vaping surge.
  2. Sanford BTBrownstein NCBaker NL, et al. Shift From Smoking Cigarettes to Vaping Nicotine in Young Adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(1):106–108. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.5239
  3. Pérez A, Bluestein MA, Kuk AE, Chen B. Age of e-cigarette initiation in USA young adults: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study (2013-2017). PLoS One. 2021 Dec 13;16(12):e0261243. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261243. PMID: 34898629; PMCID: PMC8668126.
  4. Barrington-Trimis JL, Braymiller JL, Unger JB, McConnell R, Stokes A, Leventhal AM, Sargent JD, Samet JM, Goodwin RD. Trends in the Age of Cigarette Smoking Initiation Among Young Adults in the US From 2002 to 2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2019022. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19022. PMID: 33021650; PMCID: PMC7539122.
  5. Kelsh S, Ottney A, Young M, Kelly M, Larson R, Sohn M. Young Adults’ Electronic Cigarette Use and Perceptions of Risk. Tob Use Insights. 2023 Mar 7;16:1179173X231161313. doi: 10.1177/1179173X231161313. PMID: 36911177; PMCID: PMC9996725.
  6. Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Hussin A. The Influence of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):379-384. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.019
  7. Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Nonnemaker J, et al. Association Between The Real Cost Media Campaign and Smoking Initiation Among Youths — United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(02):47-50. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6602a2
  8. Sly D, Hopkins R, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(2):233-238. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.2.233
  9. Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster D, et al. Longitudinal effects of pro‐tobacco and anti‐tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):455-465. doi:10.1080/14622200600670454
  10. Siegel M. What the FDA Gets Wrong About E-Cigarettes. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-16/what-the-fda-gets-wrong-about-e-cigarettes?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner. Published March 16, 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023.
  11. Calabro KS, Khalil GE, Chen M, Perry CL, Prokhorov AV. Pilot study to inform young adults about the risks of electronic cigarettes through text messaging. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10:100224. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100224
  12. U.S National Cancer Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities | Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS). A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities; 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-22
  13. Duke JC, Farrelly MC, Alexander TN, et al. Effect of a National Tobacco Public Education Campaign on Youth’s Risk Perceptions and Beliefs About Smoking. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(5):1248-1256. doi:10.1177/0890117117720745
  14. Kranzler EC, Hornik RC. The Relationship Between Exogenous Exposure to “The Real Cost” Anti-Smoking Campaign and Campaign-Targeted Beliefs. J Health Commun. 2019;24(10):780-790. doi:10.1080/10810730.2019.1668887
  15. The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign. Published online July 21, 2023. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/real-cost-campaign/real-cost-e-cigarette-prevention-campaign#:~:text=Our%20Goal%3A%20Educate%20youth%20about,addiction%20from%20using%20e%2Dcigarettes
  16. This Free Life Campaign. Published online March 11, 2022. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/public-health-education-campaigns/free-life-campaign

Responses to absolute and comparative risk messages among SGM and non-SGM young adults: Results from a mixed-methods formative evaluation

Authors: Emma Jankowski, Rebecca Henderson, Elle Elson, Alysha Ennis, Sydney Galusha, Grace Turk, Hayley Curran, Phoenix Matthews, Elizabeth Klein,Darren Mays, Theodore Wagener, Mike Pennell, Paul Nini, Mike Slater, Amy Ferketich, and Joanne G. Patterson

Poster presented at the 2023 CASEL Tobacco Regulatory Science Conference

INTRODUCTION

  • Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults (SGM YA) report higher dual use rates (smoking and vaping nicotine) than non-SGM YA. (1-6)
  • National tobacco risk communications have been proven to be successful at increasing knowledge about the harms of tobacco and decreasing use. (7-18)
  • No studies describe effective anti-tobacco message framing for SGM and non-SGM YA engaged in dual use, though understanding these nuances is important for developing inclusive anti-tobacco communications.
  • We tested absolute risk (AR; describing shared health harms of smoking and vaping) vs. comparative risk messages (CR; describing comparative health harms of smoking vs. vaping).

HYPOTHESIS

  • Messages emphasizing comparative (vs absolute) risk of dual use will most effectively increase tobacco risk perceptions.

METHODS

  • Through a mixed-methods, formative evaluation we iteratively developed absolute risk messages (AR; describing shared health harms of smoking and vaping) and comparative risk messages (CR; describing comparative health harms of smoking vs. vaping).
  • For focus groups (N=3 groups; N=12 participants) and in-depth interviews (N=13), participants responded qualitatively to a randomized series of AR/CR messages on FDA regulatory topics.
  • In an online rating survey (N=326), participants viewed 5 randomly selected AR/CR messages from a total of 24, which they rated for perceived message effectiveness (PME; Range: 1-5) and psychological reactance (Range: 1-5).

RESULTS

Qualitative Codebook for Focus Groups with Young Adults 

Theme  Code  Definition  N (%) of all statements 
Content  Facts/statistics  Discusses the use of facts and statistics as an effective health communication tactic  32 (12.12%) 
Fear=effective  Discusses “fear” as an effective health communication tactic. May also use words like “scary” or “afraid”  27 (10.23) 
Shock value  Discusses “shock value” as an effective health communication tactic. Participants may discuss being “surprised” by a message, making it effective  6 (2.27%) 
Novelty=effective  Discusses “novelty” (i.e.., a new idea, or new information) as an effective health communication tactic  23 (8.71%) 
Short + simple  Discusses short+simple is an effective health communication tactic, either by saying a message would be better short or simpler, or liking a message for that reason  18 (6.82%) 
Personal experience  Discusses how their personal experience (either their own smoking or a peer/loved one) influences their perceptions of the message  6 (2.27%) 
Addictiveness relative to other drugs  Discusses the addictiveness or harms of nicotine/tobacco relative to other illicit drugs or alcohol use  6 (2.27%) 
Relative risk ecig v. cig  Discusses the relative risk of using e-cigarettes versus combustible cigarettes (or the messaging around relative risk)  23 (8.71%) 
Rate reduction  Discusses using information on how to decrease smoking on the path to quitting  18 (6.82%) 
Permissive  Discusses how messaging/content is permissive (i.e., makes it seem fine to use) either vaping or cigarette smoking, or both  12 (4.55%) 
Off- ramp  Discusses building an “off ramp” (i.e., steps to quitting smoking, potentially including what to do once you know smoking is bad for you) is important content to include  7 (2.65%) 
Language  Vape=universal language  Language of “vape” or “vaping” is considered universal (used by everyone/the “norm”)  9 (3.41%) 
Lay language  Discusses how using “lay” or “everyday” language is effective (e.g., heart disease vs. CVD).  6 (2.27%) 
Product specific language  Discusses how using product-specific language (e.g., formaldehyde vs. toxic chemical) is effective  6 (2.27%) 
Audience matters  Discusses how the message is effective for targeted audience  17 (6.44%) 
General audience  Discusses using language to appeal to a general audience  12 (4.55%) 
Person-forward language  Discusses using person-forward language (e.g., people who smoke) vs product-forward language (e.g., smoker)  14 (5.30%) 

 

 

Qualitative Codebook for Interviews with Young Adults 

Theme  Code  Definition  N (%) of all statements 
Message Framing  short + simple  discusses short + simple is an effective health communication tactic, either by saying a message would be better short or simpler, or liking a message for that reason  17 (2.62%) 
facts/statistics = effective  discusses facts and statistics as an effective health communication tactic  17 (2.62%) 
facts/statistics = ineffective  discusses facts and statistics as NOT or LESS effective   9 (1.39%) 
constituents = effective  discusses mentioning toxic constituents (formaldehyde, etc.) as effective  28 (4.31%) 
constituents = ineffective  discusses toxic constituents as NOT or LESS effective   9 (1.39%) 
fear = effective  discusses “fear” as effective. May also use words like “scary” or “afraid.”  17 (2.62%) 
fear = ineffective   discusses “fear” as NOT or LESS effective  2 (0.31%) 
shock value = effective  discusses “shock value” as effective. Participants may discuss being “surprised” by a message, making it effective.  4 (0.62%) 
shock value = ineffective  discusses “shock value” as NOT being effective  2 (0.31%) 
novelty = effective  discusses “novelty” (i.e.., a new idea, or new information, “outside the box” thinking) as effective  32 (4.93%) 
novelty = ineffective  discusses “novelty” (i.e.., a new idea, or new information, “outside the box” thinking) as effective  7 (1.08%) 
known truths = effective  discusses how “knowing” that something is “true” (e.g., smoking causes cancer) makes the message more effective (vs. something novel/new/unheard of)  39 (6.01%) 
known truths = ineffective  discusses how “knowing” that something is “true” (e.g., smoking causes cancer) makes the message NOT or LESS effective (vs. something novel/new/unheard of)  24 (3.70%) 
secondary effects=effective  discusses how referencing health harms or other impacts of smoking/vaping (e.g., financial) on family/friends/bystanders is effective  2 (0.31%) 
Contextual Factors  real-life context  discusses how real-life context or current events (e.g., opioid epidemic, COVID) influences their perceptions of the message  4 (0.62%) 
personal experience  discusses how personal experience (either their own smoking or a peer/loved one) influences their perceptions of the message  53 (8.17%) 
prior quit attempts  discusses how a history of prior quit attempts influences their perceptions of the message  3 (0.46%) 
audience  discusses how audience (i.e., whether target audience is smokers/vapers; established/not established users; adolescents, young or older adults) influences how effective or acceptable the message is  74 (11.40%) 
Product and Product Use Factors  comparative risk vapes vs. cigarettes  discusses the comparative risk of vaping versus smoking combustible cigarettes (or the messaging around comparative risk)  7 (1.08%) 
equivalent risk  discusses how smoking/vaping has similar risks; or how referencing smoking/vaping in same statement makes the risk seem equivalent  13 (2.00%) 
modified risk  discusses nicotine/vaping as a modified risk (healthier or lower harm) product than traditional combustible tobacco  32 (4.93%) 
general health  Discusses general health when viewing the message; generally discusses how the message evoked a thought about addiction, whether positive or negative.  46 (7.09%) 
general addictiveness  Discusses general addictiveness when viewing the message; generally discusses how the message evoked a thought about addiction, whether positive or negative.  35 (5.39%) 
harm reduction  discusses using nicotine/tobacco as a harm reduction strategy (i.e., Instead of other drug use, to manage mental health/stress)  4 (0.62%) 
switching  discusses using “switch” language to describe vaping in lieu of smoking. May use terms including, but not limited to: “turn to,” “change over,” “substitute,” “alternative,” or “use instead”.  9 (1.39%) 
rate reduction  discusses using information on how to decrease smoking on the path to quitting  14 (2.16%) 
offramp  generally discussed building an “off ramp” (i.e., steps to quitting smoking, potentially including what to do once you know smoking is bad for you) is important content to include  17 (2.62%) 
Language  permissive  discusses how messaging/content is permissive (i.e., makes it seem fine to use) either vaping or cigarette smoking, or both.  36 (5.55%) 
tone  discusses the tone of the message (e.g., “preachy” “friendly” etc.)  27 (4.16%) 
lay language  discusses how using “lay” or “everyday” language is effective (e.g., heart disease vs. CVD).  1 (0.15%) 
scientific language  discusses how using “scientific” or “professional” language is effective (e.g., cardiovascular disease vs. heart disease)  6 (0.92%) 
specific language = effective  discusses how using more specific language is effective (e.g., lung injury vs. wheezing)  22 (3.39%) 
broad language = effective  discusses how using broader language is effective (e.g., lung injury vs. wheezing)  7 (1.08%) 
person-forward language  discusses using person-forward language (e.g., people who smoke or “using cigarettes” [Implied person]) vs product-forward language (e.g., smoker)  2 (0.31%) 
general audience  discusses using language to appeal to a general audience  1 (0.15%) 

 

Results from the Online Rating Survey

      PME- Cigarettes    PME- Vaping    Reactance 
      LGBTQ  Non-LGBTQ    LGBTQ  Non-LGBTQ    LGBTQ  Non-LGBTQ 
ID#  Msg Type  Message  M  LL  UL  M  LL  UL    M  LL  UL  M  LL  UL    M  LL  UL  M  LL  UL 
7  AR  Cigarettes and vapes contain nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.      2.00  0.18  3.82  3.11  2.67  3.56    2.85  2.39  3.31  3.10  2.66  3.54    1.61  1.35  1.88  1.79  1.49  2.09 
6  AR  Even occasional smoking and vaping can lead to nicotine addiction.      2.62*  2.17  3.06  3.68*  3.26  4.10    2.59*  3.01  3.91  3.46*  2.11  3.07    2.04  1.66  2.42  2.11  1.73  2.50 
10  AR  Can’t sleep? Nicotine in cigarettes and vapes can lead to sleep problems, including insomnia.      3.17  2.69  3.64  3.73  3.31  4.14    3.04  2.56  3.52  3.41  2.99  3.82    2.13  1.73  2.53  1.95  1.59  2.30 
4  AR  Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer, but toxic chemicals in e-liquid and tobacco can.    3.42  2.97  3.88  3.12  2.60  3.64    3.29  2.82  3.76  3.09  2.60  3.58    2.08  1.70  2.46  2.48  2.07  2.90 
2  AR  Most people think smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine are harmful to your health. They’re right.  3.44  2.98  3.89  3.54  3.12  3.96    3.41  2.95  3.86  3.33  2.89  3.78    2.05  1.70  2.41  1.99  1.70  2.28 
12  AR  Can’t find your keys? Nicotine in cigarettes and vapes can harm your brain and lead to memory loss.    3.45  3.08  3.82  3.53  3.07  4.00    3.19  2.79  3.61  3.41  2.94  3.87    2.83  2.42  3.25  2.74  2.33  3.15 
8  AR  Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine damages your DNA and  increases your risk for cancer.       3.76  3.37  4.15  4.09  3.75  4.43    3.39  2.94  3.84  3.63  3.18  4.09    2.41  1.98  2.84  2.11  1.69  2.53 
5  AR  Using cigarettes and nicotine vapes exposes you to heavy metals— like arsenic and lead.      3.85  3.47  4.24  3.90  3.52  4.28    3.74  3.42  4.06  3.51  3.06  3.96    1.77  1.44  2.10  2.15  1.81  2.50 
11  AR  Wheezing lately? Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine increases your risk for lung problems.       3.94  3.48  4.40  3.86  3.42  4.29    3.53  3.01  4.05  3.39  2.90  3.89    1.96  1.58  2.34  1.82  1.52  2.12 
3  AR  Cigarettes and some nicotine vapes contain formaldehyde, a chemical that causes cancer.     4.07  3.72  4.42  3.90  3.48  4.32    3.66  3.23  4.08  3.65  3.23  4.06    1.88  1.54  2.22  1.87  1.56  2.18 
9  AR  Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine increases your risk for heart disease.       4.34  4.1  4.59  4.07  3.65  4.49    3.59  3.15  4.04  3.73  3.26  4.19    1.80  1.44  2.16  1.96  1.55  2.38 
1  CR  Nicotine vapes are not a safe alternative to cigarettes.  2.86  2.33  3.39  2.66  1.45  3.16    3.08  2.51  3.65  3.75  3.33  4.16    2.33  1.87  2.80  1.99  1.61  2.37 
24  CR  Can’t find your keys? Research suggests that vaping nicotine can improve attention and memory during smoking abstinence.  2.69  2.21  3.17  2.60  2.16  3.04    1.93  1.54  2.32  2.06  1.64  2.47    3.30  2.88  3.73  3.41  3.00  3.82 
22  CR  Can’t sleep? People who vape and smoke report more sleep problems than those who only vape.   3.38  2.99  3.78  3.01  2.46  3.56    2.09  1.69  2.50  2.30  1.80  2.80    2.32  1.96  2.69  2.60  2.11  3.08 
14  CR  Many people think vaping nicotine is just as harmful as smoking cigarettes. Truth is, nicotine vapes are less harmful than cigarettes.  3.46  3.00  3.91  3.71  3.32  4.10    1.98  1.54  2.41  2.11  1.75  2.47    2.18  1.79  2.57  2.47  2.06  2.89 
19  CR  Nicotine vapes are addictive, but people who vape and smoke tobacco are 7 times more likely to be addicted to nicotine than those who only vape.  3.50  3.09  3.92  3.51  3.12  3.90    2.63  2.25  3.02  2.52  2.11  2.93    1.94  1.54  2.33  2.40  1.99  2.81 
18  CR  Vaping heats nicotine, resulting in lower levels of harmful chemicals than burned tobacco in cigarettes.  3.52  3.03  4.00  3.63  3.24  4.03    2.38  1.89  2.87  2.33  1.90  2.77    2.28  1.85  2.71  2.14  1.78  2.50 
13  CR  Vaping nicotine is harmful to your health, but it is less harmful than smoking.       3.71  3.25  4.17  3.77  3.43  4.11    2.39  1.96  2.82  2.48  2.08  2.89    2.02  1.65  2.39  2.46  2.15  2.78 
21  CR  People who smoke cigarettes and vape nicotine have a higher risk of developing heart disease than those who only vape.   3.73  3.33  4.13  4.07  3.66  4.49    2.46  1.93  3.00  3.03  2.57  3.48    1.96  1.57  2.35  2.07  1.72  2.43 
17  CR  Using cigarettes and nicotine vapes exposes you to more heavy metals—like arsenic and lead—than if you only vape.  3.82  3.43  4.21  3.50  2.95  4.05    3.06  2.61  3.52  2.90  2.34  3.47    2.13  1.74  2.53  2.18  1.72  2.64 
23  CR  Wheezing much? People who smoke cigarettes and vape nicotine report more lung problems than those who only vape.  3.89  3.51  4.28  4.35  4.09  4.61    3.11  2.64  3.59  3.23  2.69  3.77    2.11  1.78  2.44  2.13  1.70  2.56 
16  CR  Many people think nicotine in vapes and cigarettes causes cancer. Truth is, toxic chemicals in burning cigarettes are more likely to cause cancer.  3.97  3.58  4.36  3.78  3.36  4.20    2.63  2.19  3.07  2.63  2.10  3.16    1.88  1.56  2.20  2.38  1.96  2.80 
15  CR  Cigarettes contain more cancer-causing chemicals—like formaldehyde—than nicotine vapes.  4.01  3.60  4.42  4.13  4.42  4.48    2.10  1.71  2.50  2.53  2.04  3.01    1.95  1.59  2.31  1.84  1.49  2.18 
20  CR  Smoking cigarettes can increase your risk for lung, head, and neck cancer. Using nicotine vapes only may decrease your cancer risk.  4.04  3.69  4.39  3.94  3.48  4.39    2.34  1.85  2.84  2.34  1.88  2.81    2.11  1.63  2.59  2.58  2.11  3.04 
  • LGBTQ+ YA qualitatively described long-term physical harms (i.e., cancer) as effective.
  • Non-LGBTQ+ YA described novel messaging (i.e., insomnia, heart disease) as effective.
  • CR messages positively resonated with LGBTQ+ participants due to their implied harm reduction focus; however, non-LGBTQ+ YA expressed concern about CR messages being permissive for vaping.
  • LGBTQ+ YA described high-threat messages with “shock value” statements as effective.
  • Quantitatively, AR and CR messages scored PMEs above three, indicating promise for influencing cigarette smoking. Messages with greatest PME scores addressed heart and lung disease, toxic constituents, and cancer.
  • All messages scored below 3 for reactance, indicating low risk for counterarguing.

 

CONCLUSIONS

  • Overall, participants responded positively to AR/CR messages including short and long-term health effects.
  • LGBTQ+ participants responded more positively to CR messages, which may reflect community experiences with minority stress and coping.
  • Experimental studies testing the long-term effect of exposure to AR/CR messages on dual use among LGBTQ+ YA are needed.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Ridner S, Ma J, Walker K, et al. Cigarette smoking, ENDS use and dual use among a nationalsample of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Tob Prev Cessat. 2019;5(December). doi:10.18332/tpc/114229
  2. Delahanty J, Ganz O, Hoffman L, Guillory J, Crankshaw E, Farrelly M. Tobacco use among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young adults varies by sexual and gender identity. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:161-170. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.013
  3. Fallin-Bennett A, Lisha NE, Ling PM. Other Tobacco Product Use Among Sexual Minority Young Adult Bar Patrons. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(3):327-334. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.03.006
  4. Nayak P, Salazar LF, Kota KK, Pechacek TF. Prevalence of use and perceptions of risk of novel and other alternative tobacco products among sexual minority adults: Results from an online national survey, 2014–2015. Prev Med. 2017;104:71-78. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.024
  5. Osibogun O, Taleb ZB, Bahelah R, Salloum RG, Maziak W. Correlates of poly-tobacco use among youth and young adults: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, 2013–2014. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;187:160-164. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.024
  6. Stanton CA, Bansal-Travers M, Johnson AL, et al. Longitudinal e-Cigarette and Cigarette Use Among US Youth in the PATH Study (2013–2015). JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(10):1088-1096. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz006
  7. Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Hussin A. The Influence of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):379-384. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.019
  8. Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Nonnemaker J, et al. Association Between The Real Cost Media Campaign and Smoking Initiation Among Youths — United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(02):47-50. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6602a2
  9. Sly D, Hopkins R, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(2):233-238. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.2.233
  10. Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster D, et al. Longitudinal effects of pro‐tobacco and anti‐tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):455-465. doi:10.1080/14622200600670454
  11. Siegel M. What the FDA Gets Wrong About E-Cigarettes. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-16/what-the-fda-gets-wrong-about-e-cigarettes?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner. Published March 16, 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023.
  12. Calabro KS, Khalil GE, Chen M, Perry CL, Prokhorov AV. Pilot study to inform young adults about the risks of electronic cigarettes through text messaging. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10:100224. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100224
  13. U.S National Cancer Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities | Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS). A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities; 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-22
  14. Duke JC, Farrelly MC, Alexander TN, et al. Effect of a National Tobacco Public Education Campaign on Youth’s Risk Perceptions and Beliefs About Smoking. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(5):1248-1256. doi:10.1177/0890117117720745
  15. Kranzler EC, Hornik RC. The Relationship Between Exogenous Exposure to “The Real Cost” Anti-Smoking Campaign and Campaign-Targeted Beliefs. J Health Commun. 2019;24(10):780-790. doi:10.1080/10810730.2019.1668887
  16. The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign. Published online July 21, 2023. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/real-cost-campaign/real-cost-e-cigarette-prevention-campaign#:~:text=Our%20Goal%3A%20Educate%20youth%20about,addiction%20from%20using%20e%2Dcigarettes.
  17. This Free Life Campaign. Published online March 11, 2022. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/public-health-education-campaigns/free-life-campaign

 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

Messages Shown to Interview Participants

RR-Tox3: Using cigarettes and nicotine vapes exposes you to more heavy metals—like arsenic and lead—than if you only vape. 

RR-Tox2: Many people think nicotine in vapes and cigarettes causes cancer. Truth is, toxic chemicals in burning cigarettes are more likely to cause cancer. 

RR-PhysL2: People who smoke cigarettes and vape nicotine have a higher risk of developing heart disease than those who only vape. 

RR-PhysL1: Smoking cigarettes can increase your risk for lung, head, and neck cancer. Using nicotine vapes only may decrease your cancer risk. 

RR-Tox1: Cigarettes contain more cancer-causing chemicals—like formaldehyde—than nicotine vapes. 

RR-Soc1: Many people think vaping nicotine is just as harmful as smoking cigarettes. Truth is, nicotine vapes are less harmful than cigarettes. 

RR-Gen1: Vaping nicotine is harmful to your health, but it is less harmful than smoking. 

RR-PhyS3: Can’t find your keys? Research suggests that vaping nicotine can improve attention and memory during smoking abstinence. 

RR-Addict1: Nicotine vapes are addictive, but people who vape and smoke tobacco are 7 times more likely to be addicted to nicotine than those who only vape. 

RR-PhysS2: Wheezing much? People who smoke cigarettes and vape nicotine report more lung problems than those who only vape. 

RR-PhysS1: Can’t sleep? People who vape and smoke report more sleep problems than those who only vape. 

RR-Tox 4: Vaping heats nicotine, resulting in lower levels of harmful chemicals than burned tobacco in cigarettes. 

AR-PhyL1: Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine damages your DNA and increases your risk for cancer. 

AR-Tox2: Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer, but toxic chemicals in e-liquid and tobacco can. 

AR-PhyS2: Wheezing lately? Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine increases your risk for lung problems. 

AR-Gen 1: Nicotine vapes are not a safe alternative to cigarettes. 

AR-PhyL2: Smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine increases your risk for heart disease. 

AR-Addict1: Even occasional smoking and vaping can lead to nicotine addiction. 

AR-Addict2: Cigarettes and vapes contain nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. 

AR-Tox3: Using cigarettes and nicotine vapes exposes you to heavy metals—like arsenic and lead. 

AR-PhysS1: Can’t sleep? Nicotine in cigarettes and vapes can lead to sleep problems, including insomnia. 

AR-Tox1: Cigarettes and some nicotine vapes contain formaldehyde, a chemical that causes cancer. 

AR-Soc1: Most people think smoking cigarettes and vaping nicotine are harmful to your health. They’re right. 

AR-PhyS3: Can’t find your keys? Nicotine in cigarettes and vapes can harm your brain and lead to memory loss. 

 

Messages shown to Focus Group Participants

T1a: Cigarette smoke contains 69 cancer-causing   chemicals.

T1b: Cigarette smoke contains 69 chemicals known to cause cancer. 

T2a: Cigarette smoke AND e-cigarette vapor contains cancer-causing chemicals, including formaldehyde.

T2b: Cigarette smoke AND e-cigarette vapor contains chemicals that cause cancer, including formaldehyde.

T3: E-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke contains carbon monoxide–a deadly toxin that deprives your heart of oxygen

P1: Smoking cigarettes increases your risk for lung, head and neck, and other tobacco related cancers.  

P2: 1 in 5 people die each year from smoking cigarettes. ​​

P3a: Using both e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes can increase your risk for cardiovascular disease. 

P3b: Using both e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes can increase your risk for heart disease.

P4aDual users of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm. 

P4bUse e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes can increase your risk for multiple respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm. 

P4cYoung people who vape nicotine and smoke cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm. 

P4dYoung adults who vape and smoke cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm. 

P4eSmokers who also vape experience recurring respiratory issues— including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm.

A1a: Approximately 2 in 3 cigarette smokers are dependent on nicotine

A1b: Approximately 2 in 3 smokers are addicted to nicotine​​

A1c: Approximately 2 in 3 tobacco users are nicotine dependent 

A2a. All tobacco products contain nicotine—a highly addictive chemical. ​​

A2b. All tobacco products contain nicotine—an addictive chemical.​​

A2c. All tobacco products contain nicotine—an addictive chemical that causes insomnia.​​

Ad. All tobacco products contain nicotine—an addictive chemical that increases heart rate and blood pressure.

RRT1aCigarettes contain 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals than e-cigarettes.

RRT1b: Cigarettes contain 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals than nicotine vapes.​​

RRT1cThere are 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals in cigarettes than nicotine vapes.​​

RRT2Cigarettes contain more cancer-causing chemicals— like formaldehyde— than e-cigarettes.

RRT3a: Carbon monoxide-–a deadly toxin that deprives your heart of oxygen-–is higher in dual users of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes​​

RRT3b: Carbon monoxide-–a deadly toxin that deprives your heart of oxygen-–is higher in people who smoke and vape nicotine​​

RRT3c: Carbon monoxide-–a deadly toxin that deprives your heart of oxygen-–is higher in people who smoke cigarettes and vape.

RRP1: Smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products can increase your risk for lung, head and neck, and other tobacco related cancers​​

RRP2: 1 in 5 people die each year from smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products.

 RRP3: Smokers who also vape nicotine are more likely to develop cardiovascular disease.​​

RRP4aDual users of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes experience more respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and phlegm—than people who use e-cigarettes only.​​

RRP4bPeople who smoke and vape experience more respiratory issues— including wheezing, coughing, and phlegm—than people who use e- cigarettes only.

RRA1: People who vape and use cigarettes are 7 times as likely to be addicted to nicotine than those who only vape. 

RRA2: Both combustible tobacco and e-cigarettes contain nicotine—a highly addictive chemical.