Perceptions of a reduced nicotine policy and predictors of policy support: A nationally representative U.S. survey

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Although current evidence supports the public-health benefits of a reduced-nicotine policy, almost half of people who smoke (~ 40%) do not support the policy. This study estimates the factors most strongly associated with support or opposition toward the policy, including tobacco use status, perceived effects of a reduced nicotine policy, trust in the FDA, and psychological distress. The study aims to inform messaging campaigns and policy makers.

METHODS

Data were collected in 2021 with nationally representative samples of U.S. adults (n = 1763). After receiving information about the reduced nicotine policy, participants indicated their beliefs and support for or opposition to the policy, along with other individual difference characteristics. Univariate population parameters and multinomial logistic regression coefficients were estimated.

RESULTS

In adjusted models, people who formerly or never smoked were less likely to oppose the policy compared to those who currently smoke; people with higher psychological distress and those who believe the policy will promote switching to e-cigarettes were more likely to oppose the policy. In addition, people were more likely to support the policy if they believed it would make quitting easier or that the FDA is trustworthy.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational campaigns about reduced nicotine policy should expect higher impact by targeting prevalent perceptions and those more strongly associated with policy sentiment. In anticipation of the policy rollout, there may be a critical window to shape public opinion.

Messaging about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to influence policy attitudes, harm perceptions and smoking motivations: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

To reduce smoking and the harms it causes, countries, including the USA, are considering policies to reduce nicotine in combustible tobacco to minimally addictive levels. Effective messages about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) and this policy are crucial in combating misperceptions threatening the policy's effectiveness.

DATA AND METHODS

A discrete choice experiment assessed messages about VLNCs. Participants were 590 adults who smoked exclusively, 379 adults who both smoked and used e-cigarettes, 443 adults who formerly smoked and 351 young adults who never smoked (total n=1763). Seven message attributes were varied systematically (source, harm, chemicals, nicotine, satisfaction, addictiveness and quitting efficacy). Outcomes were selection of messages that generated the most positive attitude towards reduced nicotine policy, the greatest perceived harmfulness of VLNCs, and most strongly motivated quitting and initiating behaviour for VLNCs.

RESULTS

Information about specific harms and chemicals of VLNCs had the largest effects on selection of messages as eliciting more negative attitudes towards VLNCs policy, increasing perceived VLNC harmfulness, increasing motivation to quit VLNCs and decreasing motivation to try VLNCs. Messages with information about quitting efficacy were selected as more motivating to quit among those who smoke, but also more motivating to try VLNCs among those who do not smoke.

CONCLUSION

Harm and chemical information can be prioritised to ensure VLNCs are not misperceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Messages about increased quitting efficacy and reduced addictiveness associated with VLNCs may backfire if presented to those who do not smoke.

Recruitment Methods, Inclusion, and Successful Participation in a Longitudinal Clinical Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

Underrepresentation of historically marginalized populations in clinical trials continues to threaten the validity of health intervention research. Evidence supports the merits of intercept and other proactive forms of recruitment for achieving more equitable representation. However, researchers also report lower retention and adherence to protocols among these populations, particularly in longitudinal studies. Few studies have compared recruitment methods for longitudinal randomized trials testing health interventions, with even fewer having done so for trials involving ecological momentary assessment (EMA). As intervention research integrates EMA and other data collection approaches requiring substantial participant effort, it is critical to better understand the effectiveness and implications of strategies to improve the representativeness of health research. This secondary data analysis compared outcomes of proactive and reactive recruitment strategies (mobile lab intercepts and internet/flyer advertising, respectively) in study inclusion, task completion, and retention within a 14-day randomized controlled trial that used EMA to evaluate cigarette package health messages. Proactive recruitment resulted in higher proportions of participants with low income and education, limited health literacy, and of diverse racial/ethnic makeup. However, this recruitment method also resulted in lower task completion, especially in the second week of the trial period, and lower retention, although group differences were not explained by participant sociodemographic characteristics targeted by inclusion efforts. We conclude that proactive recruitment via intercepts is an effective strategy for health intervention research that aims to include stakeholders from historically marginalized groups but that researchers and funders must recognize these methods require additional resources, considerations, and capacity to address non-trivial challenges to successful participation.

Combining Inserts With Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs to Promote Smoking Cessation: A 2-Week Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Cigarette pack inserts with messages on cessation benefits and advice are a promising labeling policy that may help promote smoking cessation.

PURPOSE

To assess insert effects, with and without accompanying pictorial health warning labels(HWLs), on hypothesized psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject randomized trial (inserts with efficacy messages vs. no inserts; large pictorial HWLs vs. small text HWLs), with 367 adults who smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day. Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs modified to reflect their experimental condition. Over 2 weeks, we surveyed participants approximately 4-5 times a day during their smoking sessions, querying feelings about smoking, level of worry about harms from smoking, self-efficacy to cut down on cigarettes, self-efficacy to quit, hopefulness about quitting, and motivation to quit. Each evening, participants reported their perceived susceptibility to smoking harms and, for the last 24 hr, their frequency of thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, conversations about smoking cessation or harms, and foregoing or stubbing out cigarettes before they finished smoking. Mixed-effects ordinal and logistic models were estimated to evaluate differences between groups.

RESULTS

Participants whose packs included inserts were more likely than those whose packs did not include inserts to report foregoing or stubbing out of cigarettes (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.36, 4.20). Otherwise, no statistically significant associations were found between labeling conditions and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides some evidence, albeit limited, that pack inserts with efficacy messages can promote behaviors that predict smoking cessation attempts.

Reactions to Messages About a Nicotine Reduction Policy: A Focus Group Study Among People Who Use Little Cigars and Cigarillos

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed rulemaking to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products to non-addictive levels. This qualitative study documents reactions to messages communicating this policy among people who use little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs).

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted eight focus groups with participants from four populations with the highest prevalence of cigar use (African American males and females, white males and females). Participants described their reactions to eight messages about the policy: Three messages about the equal risk of LCCs with regular and low nicotine levels; three quit efficacy messages about low nicotine LCCs being easier to quit; one "compensation" message to correct misperceptions about the policy causing people to smoke more to get desired nicotine; and one message about using alternative nicotine sources (eg, e-cigarettes).

RESULTS

Participants perceived risk messages as the most motivating to quit, whereas efficacy messages made some participants feel that the policy would cause former users of LCCs to relapse. Many participants expressed favorable responses to the compensation message. The message about using alternative nicotine sources sparked intense responses, with many participants expressing outrage and mistrust of the message. Participants' beliefs that they were not addicted to LCCs dampened their perceptions of the effectiveness of the policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions of the addictiveness and relative harms of LCCS influenced responses to policy messages. The FDA should consider using different messages to communicate with people who use LCCs because they perceive LCCs as different from cigarettes.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first study to document affective and cognitive responses to the FDA's reduced nicotine policy among people who use LCCs. The false belief that cigar products are less harmful than cigarettes may be influencing people's lack of support for the reduced nicotine policy and difficulty in understanding its potential positive impact. To maximize the public health benefit of the reduced nicotine policy, the FDA should include LCC products in the policy; however, it is crucial that they use educational messaging to clarify misperceptions regarding nicotine and harm as it applies to LCCs.

A mixed-method study of perceptions of cigarette pack inserts among adult smokers from New York and South Carolina exposed as part of a randomized controlled trial

While many countries require prominent pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) on the outside of cigarette packs to communicate the harms of smoking, there is evidence that cigarette pack inserts that contain efficacy messages may enhance the effectiveness of PHWLs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory authority to communicate with smokers through inserts. While current labeling regulations do not require inclusion of inserts, the FDA could implement them in the future. This study assesses US smokers' perceptions of cigarette package inserts at the conclusion of a two-week randomized trial on cigarette labeling where half of participants were exposed to insert messages (two response-efficacy messages and two self-efficacy messages) in their packs. Participants (n = 359) completed a 30- to 60-min interview with both quantitative and qualitative assessments, including measures of recall and perceived message effectiveness (PME) for specific inserts. Correlates of recall and PME were estimated using mixed-effects regression models. Qualitative responses to PME items were analyzed using thematic analysis. Response-efficacy messages had higher PME and recall than self-efficacy messages. People had diverse responses to the inserts, including that they were positive, thought-provoking, and helpful. Reactions to and perceptions of the inserts indicate potential benefits of integrating efficacy messages into labeling policies.

"I Crave a Blunt, I Don't Crave a Cigarillo": A Focus Group Study on Perceptions of Nicotine and Addiction among US Adults Who Currently Smoke Little Cigars or Cigarillos

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s proposal to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes is gaining traction, it is still undetermined whether the policy will also include other combustible tobacco products, such as little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and how such a policy should be communicated given the patterns of use and perceptions around LCCs. This study examined perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCC use and involved data collection from eight semi-structured virtual focus groups conducted in Summer 2021 in the US. Participants were adults who reported past-30-day use of LCCs, consisting of African American males (n = 9), African American females (n = 9), white males (n = 14), and white females (n = 11). Participants discussed their perceptions of nicotine and addiction in general and in relation to LCC use. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Differences across race and sex groups were examined. Participants did not consider nicotine to be a characterizing feature of LCCs; rather, they generally associated nicotine with cigarettes. Participants' views of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs were discussed along four dimensions: context of use, frequency of use, the presence of cravings, and whether a product is modified (e.g., by adding marijuana). Social and infrequent use, a lack of cravings, and the use of LCCs for marijuana were considered indicative of a lack of addiction and reasons not to be concerned about nicotine in LCCs. Because perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs differ from those of cigarettes, communications about a reduced nicotine policy that includes LCCs should consider these differences to ensure the policy is understood by people who currently use LCCs and to prevent people who use cigarettes from switching to LCCs.

Qualitative analysis of anti-abortion discourse used in arguments for a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina

Background

On June 24, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion legislation entirely up to states. However, anti-abortion activists and legislators have organized for decades to prevent abortion access through restrictive state-level legislation. In 2019, South Carolina legislators proposed a bill criminalizing abortion after 6 weeks gestation, before most people know they are pregnant. The current study examines the anti-abortion rhetoric used in legislative hearings for this extreme abortion restriction in South Carolina. By examining the arguments used by anti-abortion proponents, we aim to expose their misalignment with public opinion on abortion and demonstrate that their main arguments are not supported by and often are counter to medical and scientific evidence.

Methods

We qualitatively analyzed anti-abortion discourse used during legislative hearings of SC House Bill 3020, The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act. Data came from publicly available videos of legislative hearings between March and November 2019, during which members of the public and legislators testified for and against the abortion ban. After the videos were transcribed, we thematically analyzed the testimonies using a priori and emergent coding.

Results

Testifiers (Anti-abortion proponents) defended the ban using scientific disinformation and by citing advances in science to redefine "life." A central argument was that a fetal "heartbeat" (i.e., cardiac activity) detected at 6 weeks gestation indicates life. Anti-abortion proponents used this to support their argument that the 6-week ban would "save lives." Other core strategies compared anti-abortion advocacy to civil rights legislation, vilified supporters and providers of abortion, and framed people who get abortions as victims. Personhood language was used across strategies and was particularly prominent in pseudo-scientific arguments.

Discussion

Abortion restrictions are detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people with the potential to become pregnant and to those who are pregnant. Efforts to defeat abortion bans must be grounded in a critical and deep understanding of anti-abortion strategies and tactics. Our results reveal that anti-abortion discourse is extremely inaccurate and harmful. These findings can be useful in developing effective approaches to countering anti-abortion rhetoric.