Posts

Meet the Lab – Dr. Megan Roberts

Dr. Megan Roberts 

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Title: Associate Professor, OSU College of Public Health

Dr. Megan Roberts is an Associate Professor of Public Health at The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on tobacco use among populations historically targeted by the tobacco industry–particularly adolescents and young adults, racial/ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and individuals living in rural areas.

What was a memorable experience of your public health career?

I supported the restriction on flavored tobacco products that was recently passed in our city of Columbus, OH. A lot of public health equity advocates worked very hard to make this happen: working with key community stakeholders, garnering support from the public, and providing testimony to the City Council. It was really exciting to watch the process unfold, but also nerve-racking because of the strong industry opposition!

What advice would you give to students pursuing public health? 

Public health is so incredibly broad, so take time to find an area that is the right fit for you. Working or volunteering with public health faculty or public health organizations is a great way to experience different environments.

Follow her on Instagram! @meganroberts_osu

Meet the Lab – Monica Stanwick

Monica Stanwick (She/Her/Hers)

Research Assistant, MPH- Health Behavior & Health Promotion, second-year

I grew up in southeastern Ohio on the border of West Virginia, and I attended Marshall University where I earned a B.S. in biology. I came by public health in a winding sort of way, but I am really excited to begin my MPH and start working in the areas of food insecurity and eating disorder prevention.

What drew you to a public health education? 

A few years ago, I became fascinated by the treatment-heavy perspective of the US healthcare system, and I started to question why we didn’t focus more on prevention of disease in the first place. Around the same time, I began to volunteer with food rescue organizations working to simultaneously reduce food waste and food insecurity, and I got really interested in eating disorders and nutrition. I happily discovered public health was the intersection at which all my interests could meet!

What makes you passionate about addressing health disparities in your research? 

What are your goals for the future? I’m not 100% sure what I want to do after my MPH, but I think I might be interested in pursuing a PhD in public health. Whether I stay in academia or not, I want to be involved in reducing food insecurity and/or reducing prevalence of eating disorders. I think I’ll be happy doing any kind of prevention and promotion, work, though!

How do you spend your time outside of academia? 

Outside of academia, I like to read (everything from Harry Potter to Greek myth retellings to Stephen King to memoir), exercise (I ride in Pelotonia! Come ride with me!), try new restaurants and coffee shops, go thrifting, bake, and spend time with my family and friends.

Research Article: “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Differences in Perceptions and Product Appeal in Response to E-Cigarette Advertising”

This research article was published by Jessica Liu, et al. in 2023.  We know that e-cigarette use is more common in LGBTQ+ population and this study focused on perceptions around e-cigarette ads. It was found that there was an association with: liking the ad, perceived ad relavence, product use intention, and perceived ad effectiveness.

The study found that heterosexual women and the LGBTQ+ population wanted to use e-cigarettes less when viewing advertisements showing an e-liquid bottle. They also rated the effectiveness lower when viewing ads containing different flavors of e-cigarettes.

This research is important to the community because it helps gather information to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes’ use.

Click here to access the full article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37664443/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Sexual%20minoritized%20women%20and,use%20intentions%20than%20heterosexual%20men.

 

 

A Qualitative Assessment of LGBTQ+ Young Adults’ Responses to Culturally Targeted Tobacco Public Education Advertisements

Authors: Ashley Meadows, Emma Jankowski, Hayley Curran, Alysha C. Ennis, Sydney Galusha, Caitlin Miller, Grace Turk, and Joanne G. Patterson

 

Poster presented at the 2023 CASEL Tobacco Regulatory Science Conference

INTRODUCTION

  • LGBTQ+ young adults report higher rates of smoking and vaping compared to non-LGBTQ+ young adults.
  • Mass-reach tobacco public education campaigns are an effective strategy for preventing tobacco initiation and decreasing use in the general population.
  • Few published studies have examined the content and features that LGBTQ+ young adults prefer when viewing culturally-targeted tobacco public education campaigns.
  • This study qualitatively assessed LGBTQ+ young adults’ perceptions and reactions to culturally targeted tobacco education campaign materials.

METHODS 

  • Focus groups (N=6 groups; n=22 participants) of young adults aged 18-35 (76% non-Hispanic white, 52% bisexual, 86% assigned female at birth) were recruited from December 2022 – January 2023.
  • Participants viewed a randomly ordered set of culturally targeted tobacco public education advertisements. Semi-structured interviews assessed perceptions of images and language on each culturally targeted tobacco education ad.
  • We used template analysis to thematically analyze data. A priori deductive and inductive coding were applied to qualitatively understand LGBTQ+ young adults’ perceptions of visuals and semantics used in the FDA’s “This Free Life” and “Every Try Counts” tobacco public education campaigns.

RESULTS 

Qualitative Codebook for Focus Groups with Young Adults

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
  • LGBTQ+ young adults found the FDA’s “Every Try Counts” tobacco public education campaign effective. They responded positively to the campaign’s diverse and authentic representation of LGBTQ+ people and found subtle rainbow background color gradients aesthetically pleasing.
  • Participants had fewer positive reactions when discussing the FDA’s “This Free Life” tobacco public education campaign. Young adults perceived imagery representing LGBTQ+ people as inauthentic and stereotypical. Overuse of LGBTQ+ cultural imagery (e.g., overt rainbows), neon colors, and unclear slogans were viewed as less effective.

 

CONCLUSIONS

  • Participants responded positively to “personal” and strengths-based messages, subtle cultural imagery, and authentic representation of LGBTQ+ people.
  • Participants responded more positively to the “Every Try Counts” campaign. 
    • “I think it’s effective…I could still believe that  a real person said this, even if it was definitely written by someone for this purpose.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
    • “I think with the quote and the age, it kind of ties everything together. Like, oh its that person, and they’re reaching out to you with their story…it makes it feel more personal.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
    • “It looks more relatable as opposed to in your face with an overproduced photoshoot.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker) 
    • “The flags are great, they are utilized very well here.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker) 
    • The composition is really nice…not stereotypically gay looking people.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
  • Participants responded less positively to the “This Free Life” campaign.
    • “What do you mean ‘dull your glow?’ What do you mean ‘Shine?’ Like what are these attributes that you are claiming? I genuinely don’t know…if it’s a good thing or a bad thing.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
    • “I don’t think a lot of people identify with the very bright rainbows…it’s like rainbow washing.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
    • “They are making it way more flamboyant than it needs to be.  And once again, it’s alienating.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper) 
    • “It reminds me of middle school in a way…it’s hard for me to take that one seriously.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker and vaper)
    • “It’s definitely giving throw back to my emo phase.” (LGBTQ+ current smoker)

 

IMPLICATIONS

  • LGBTQ+ culture is dynamic, and tobacco public education needs periodic updates to accurately represent culturally-specific semantics (slang, pronouns) and visuals (fashion, expression).
  • Future research should experimentally test the effect of exposure to tobacco public education that leverages visual and semantic strategies acceptable to LGBTQ+ young adults on behavior.
  • Developing best practice toolkits and modifiable LGBTQ+ culturally targeted campaign materials may support local and government public health agencies to implement LGBTQ+ specific campaigns across time and settings.

 

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

Sample of Media shown to Focus Group Participants

           

Example Questions Asked to Participants: 

  • “When you see this advertisement, what do you think?”
  • “Who is the target audience? Who is it missing?”
  • “Would this advertisement be effective at reaching LGBTQ people, why or why not?”
  • “Is this ad believable? Convincing?”
  • “What imagery do you like/not like?”
  • “What language do you like/not like?”

Gender Euphoria and The Gym

Gender Affirming Workouts

Interested in learning more? Sign up here: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C084BA8A628A6FAC61-44794183-gender

Rory O’Malley: omalley.172@osu.edu

Bigger chest and wider back

  • Barbell (or Dumbbell) bench press
  • Chest flies
  • Incline bench press
  • Lat pull-downs
  • Lat pull-overs
  • Barbell bent over rows
  • Single arm seated row
  • Pull-ups

Bigger shoulders and defined biceps

  • Dumbbell shoulder press
  • Lateral raises
  • Overhead barbell press
  • Incline dumbbell curls
  • Pronated dumbbell curls
  • Hammer curls

Defined quadriceps and hamstrings

  • Barbell back (or front) squat
  • Leg extension machine
  • Heel-elevated goblet squat
  • Walking lunges
  • Barbell deadlift
  • Hamstring curl machine

Workout Social Media Accounts

Kelly Haines

Luck Bianca

Quel Theodosopoulos

Miles Alexander

 

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.

 

Meet the Lab – Ashley Meadows

Ashley Meadows (she/her/hers)

Graduate Research Assistant, MPH – Epidemiology, second-year

I grew up in Maineville, Ohio and I lived about 5 minutes from Kings Island.  I love thrill hobbies, I’ve gone to several theme parks to ride roller coasters, gone sky diving, and been human catapulted backwards into a lake.  One of my bucket list items is to go to every theme park in the US.

What drew you to a public health education? 

I was drawn to public health because I want to help educate the public about ways they can help keep themselves and their loved ones safe.  I am a big believer in education instead of forcing someone to make healthy decisions.  Without breaking down why something could be an important change in lifestyle, it’s impossible to get individuals on board with your ideas.  

What makes you passionate about addressing health disparities in your research? 

I am passionate about health equity and leveling the playing field for all people.  So discovering why some minority marginalized groups are experiencing greater health disparities than others is a big drive in my research.   

How do you spend your time outside of academia? 

While I am in school, I spend a lot of my free time going on walks, hikes, and roller skating. Outside of being in school I like to travel to other states and try local foods!  

What advice would you give to students pursuing public health? 

Public health is a huge diverse major.  The beauty of public health is that we are needed in an enormous amount of various places.  Don’t be afraid to branch out and talk to a wide range of people who are looking into public health, because there are so many paths to explore you can find something here that you are truly passionate about.  Don’t put yourself in a small box, be open to the large array of possibilities public health has to offer.   

 

Meet the Lab – Dr. Brittney Keller-Hamilton, MPH

Dr. Brittney Lee Keller-Hamilton, MPH

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Title: Assistant Professor, OSU Division of Medical Oncology

Dr. Keller-Hamilton has published more than 10 papers with PS LGBTQ P.I., Dr. Joanne Patterson. Dr. Keller-Hamilton is an epidemiologist and assistant professor at OSU’s College of Medicine. Her primary research interest is reducing health disparities that are caused by tobacco use.

What was a memorable experience of your public health career?

  • I always love to hear positive feedback from our research participants—that they quit or cut down on their smoking, enjoyed interacting with our research team, or appreciated the opportunity to contribute to cancer research.

What advice would you give to students pursuing public health?

  • Look for opportunities to apply what you learned in the classroom. This helps the concepts stick!

Research Review: Absolute and Relative E-cigarette Harm Perceptions Among Young Adult Lesbian and Bisexual Women and Nonbinary People Assigned Female at Birth

 

Joanne G. Patterson and her team have been researching e-cigarette harm perceptions.  This study was done to assess the absolute and relative e-cigarette harm perceptions among young adult lesbian, bisexual women, and non-binary people assigned female at birth.  There were various percpectives found, however participants still feel as though e-cigarettes are a safer choice than cigarettes are to their health.  Don’t miss out, you can read the full article for free until August 27th 2023 by clicking the link here: https://go.osu.edu/23jgpsd

Meet The Lab – Dr. Joanne Patterson

Meet our amazing leader in the PS LGBTQ+ Lab!! Dr. Patterson is this teams Principal Investigator and keeps this ship afloat.  Her hard work and daily dedication to the team motivates us to put our best work forward.  Thank you for all you do Joanne, we really couldn’t do it without you! Read more about her below.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Title: Assistant Professor, Div. Health Behavior and Health Promotion PhD in Health Behavior and Health Education, 2019, The University of Tennessee

Date: 07/11/2023

Hometown and Public Health interest:

I am originally from Berwick-upon-Tweed, a small town in North England, but I moved to Columbus, Georgia as a teenager. I’m invested in research to reduce cancer rates and risk factors experiences by LGBTQ+ populations living in the United States.

What drew you to a public health education?

I began my public health education through my social work practice. Working in community-based nonprofits, I quickly learned that macro/population-level interventions are needed to complement micro/individual-level and clinical interventions to truly reduce cancer health inequities. Thankfully, I had a great supervisor who pointed me in the way of a dual-degree as an MSW/MPH student.

What makes you passionate about addressing health disparities in your research?

I believe that everyone has the inherent right to live a full and healthy life, to make independent choices about their health and wellness, and to have the resources available and accessible to them to support that health decision-making. LGBTQ+ people experience systematic and structural discrimination that affects their health, health decision-making, and healthcare access. It’s not okay. My goal is to help level the playing field for LGBTQ+ people to reduce inequitable cancer rates experienced by LGBTQ+ populations and improve health during cancer survivorship.

What are your goals for the future?

· To contribute science that informs interventions (including policy, communications, and behavioral interventions) to improve cancer health equity for LGBTQ+ people.

· To produce work that’s impactful enough to warrant an interview by NPR’s Robin Young!

· To engage as many students as possible in public health research through our PS LGBTQ+ Health Equity Lab

· To end my career knowing that I provided excellent mentorship to students from minoritized and underserved groups. I didn’t quite know how to seek mentorship, research experiences, or financial support during my undergraduate and graduate training, and it’s my goal to share what I’ve learned along the way to undergrad, graduate, doctoral, and postdoc students and trainees.

How do you spend your time outside of academia?

I enjoy farmer’s markets; playing cards and entertaining guests with my wife; walking our dog, Nova; and creative writing. Here’s a short poem on how I see what I do:

on science & teaching

Listening.

giving Voice to stories

Our lives in words, numbers.

Heart in hands. Undone:

art – practice – science – art

the teacher always

Being. taught

-JGP 04-17-2023

What advice would you give to students pursuing public health?

Dig into the subjects, skills, and tasks that light you up. Love numbers? Epi or Biostats may be for you. Do you like to unravel context? Are you a good listener? Consider qualitative work. Are you the conversationalist at community gatherings? Do you like to bring people together? Consider applying community engaged methods in your research or practice. Try out scientific and practical experiences by seeking research assistantships, internships, and volunteer positions while in your program. The experience you build while attaining your degree will directly affect your capacity to talk about your interests and skills on the job market. Talk with your peers, faculty, and practice mentors about what you think you want to do. Remember: Life is too short to pursue a career that doesn’t light a fire in your belly. Use this time to figure out what that is and try it on.

That said, don’t make work your whole life. Develop work-life boundaries. Make time for play. When you can, buy yourself flowers, or fancy coffee, or the “good” bread – whatever is a treat for you. Set up dates with family and friends. Sleep. Please sleep. Also, meals and water are critical for keeping up your energy. Don’t forget those either!