Dr. Patterson was featured on the PHPod podcast in an episde entitled “The Lavender Haze: Enabling a Healthy Queer Future.” In this episode of PHPod, host Abby Varker speaks with experts about the current health landscape that queer youth and young adults are facing in the U.S., touching on gender-affirming care, minor consent laws, substance use, and harm reduction techniques. They also discuss the possible strategies to enable LGBTQ+ people to live healthier lives in the future. Listen here, or wherever you get your podcasts!
LGBTQ+ Public Health
“Minority stressors and tobacco use among a US sample of sexual and gender minority young adults” – new research led by Dr. Wilson Figueroa
In this new paper published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, the relationship between minority stress and current tobacco use is examined amongst LGBTQ+ young adults. Major findings include trans young adults experiencing the highest levels of both general and minority stress, and increased odds of current tobacco use among trans young adults as minority stress increases. This study has implications for policy related to creating safe spaces for trans young adults to reduce minority stress, and also for tailored interventions that consider minority stress as a factor related to tobacco use.
Check out the full article here.
Authors: Wilson Figueroa; Emma Jankowski; Hayley Curran; Alysha C. Ennis; Tonia Poteat; Ethan Morgan; Elizabeth Klein; Rin Reczek; and Joanne G. Patterson
Congratulations to Seed Grant Recipient, Dr. Patterson!
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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?”
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
P4a: Dual users of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm.
P4b: Use e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes can increase your risk for multiple respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm.
P4c: Young people who vape nicotine and smoke cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm.
P4d: Young adults who vape and smoke cigarettes experience recurring respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and excess phlegm.
P4e: Smokers 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.
RRT1a: Cigarettes contain 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals than e-cigarettes.
RRT1b: Cigarettes contain 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals than nicotine vapes.
RRT1c: There are 9 times more cancer-causing chemicals in cigarettes than nicotine vapes.
RRT2: Cigarettes 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.
RRP4a: Dual users of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes experience more respiratory issues—including wheezing, coughing, and phlegm—than people who use e-cigarettes only.
RRP4b: People 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.
It’s June, y’all… HAPPY PRIDE!
This month we’re celebrating Pride, the LGBQTQ+ community, and our lab of amazing LGBTQ+ and allied health researchers.
One of the main Pride events is kicking off in Columbus, Ohio this week, so we thought it was the perfect time to share a short introduction to Pride and why it’s important to public health.
What is Pride?
Pride is a month focused on celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) community and history. The first Pride marches were held in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago on the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall riots – a series of spontaneous demonstrations that erupted in New York City on June 28, 1969 when police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar.
At the time, “masquerade” or “cross-dressing” laws deemed that “men” and “women” must wear a specific number of clothing items that matched the gender on their state-issued ID. These laws were used to raid drinking establishments and arrest transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Just after midnight on June 28, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn as they had before. But this time, Stonewall patrons fought back.
As Shane O’Neill, film producer of the New York times mini-documentary, “The Stonewall you know is a Myth. And that’s O.K.” noted,
“Stonewall was about people reclaiming their own narratives…”.
Pride Month is a time to celebrate LGBTQ+ community, identity, and culture. It’s an opportunity for LGBTQ+ folks and allies to show up, en masse, and just “be”. During Pride, we celebrate our progress in advancing civil rights for LGBTQ people. During Pride, we draw attention to the reality that LGBTQ+ civil rights and lives are under attack.
How does public health connect to Pride?
For public health practitioners and scientists, Pride is a time to assess what we are doing to address the social conditions that threaten the health and safety of LGBTQ+ people in our communities.
In 2023, 491 bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals have been introduced in state legislatures.
- 130 bills target access to LGBTQ+ healthcare. These bills limit access to medically-necessary health care, like Medicaid and other insurance coverage, for transgender people. Many ban gender affirming care for young people and create criminal penalties to those providing gender affirming care.
- 228 bills target education. They prevent trans students from participating in school sports activities and use bathrooms that correspond with their gender, compel teachers to “out” students, and censor in-school discussions of LGBTQ+ people and history.
The slate of laws targeting LGBTQ people reflects a growing culture of violence. In 2022, anti-LGBTQ+ violence and extremism – including demonstrations, acts of political violence and murder, and the distribution of offline propaganda – surged around the United States. Anti-LGBTQ+ extremism harms LGBTQ+ people, who are up to 4x as likely to experience violent attacks as non-LGBT+ people.
Public health practice and science recognizes that the social conditions we experience effect mental and physical health. Trauma lives in the body in the form of chronic inflammation and pain. Trauma drives coping and health behaviors. It’s not surprising that LGBTQ+ people fare worse on leading health indicators. At a population-level, tobacco use, vaping, and binge drinking are higher among LGBTQ+ people. We also experience high rates of hypertension and heart disease; diabetes; asthma and COPD; and lung, cervical, anal, breast, and colorectal cancers. We lose too many to homicide and suicide.
As public health workers, funders, and scientists, we can protect and support LGBTQ+ communities. We can:
- stand against legislation that puts the lives and health of LGBTQ+ people at risk.
- develop services, organizations, and communities that welcome and are accessible to LGBTQ+ people.
- include LGBTQ+ health case studies and share LGBTQ+ focused research in our curriculum and continuing education programs.
- fund community-engaged research and initiatives to strengthen and support LGBTQ+ communities.
- add sexual orientation and gender identity questions to surveys so our health and wellness is accounted for.
- support local LGBTQ+ businesses.
- speak up and show up with our LGBTQ+ neighbors, coworkers, family, and friends.
Final thoughts
LGBTQ+ people and communities are resilient. We are strong. We are hopeful. We endure. We matter.
All LGBTQ+ people deserve to feel safe, joyful, and connected.
We need public health to stand with us, to advocate with us, and to help us build toward justice for all people.