Waterpipe Tobacco Warnings: An Experimental Study Among a Nationally Representative Sample of US Young Adults.
Journal
Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco
ISSN: 1469-994X
Titre abrégé: Nicotine Tob Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 10 2021
07 10 2021
Historique:
received:
13
11
2020
accepted:
01
06
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Waterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking by young adults remains high and misperceptions are common. Product warnings can increase knowledge of harms and reduce use. The goal of this study was to test warning statements, including the FDA-required nicotine warning (prior to implementation), on young adults' thinking about harms of and discouragement from WT smoking. We conducted a between-subjects experiment in a nationally representative telephone survey of 1152 young adults aged 18-29. Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of five warning statements and reported how much, on a 4-point scale, the warning made them think about the harms and discouraged them from WT smoking. The sample was 36.8% female, 57.8% white, 20.2% Black, 24.1% Hispanic, with a mean age of 23.2 (SE = 0.25). Under half (43.5%) had ever smoked WT. There were significant differences among the statements on both thinking about harms (p < .0001) and discouragement (p < .0001). The FDA-required "nicotine" warning led to the lowest thinking about harms (M = 2.85, SE = 0.08) and was the least discouraging (M = 2.86, SE = 0.08), while the "100 cigarettes" warning resulted in the greatest thinking about harms (M = 3.62, SE = 0.05) and was the most discouraging (M = 3.56, SE = 0.06). The nicotine warning resulted in the lowest levels of thinking about harms and discouragement from WT smoking, suggesting limited impact. However, a warning focused on comparing smoke inhalation from WT smoking to cigarettes seems promising. Warnings should cover a broad range of WT health effects, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes. Findings also have implications for the content of international waterpipe warnings. This study indicates that the nicotine warning is the least effective at making young adults think about the harms of and discouraging WT smoking. The FDA and other countries should consider requiring warnings to cover a broader range of health harms, misperceptions, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Waterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking by young adults remains high and misperceptions are common. Product warnings can increase knowledge of harms and reduce use. The goal of this study was to test warning statements, including the FDA-required nicotine warning (prior to implementation), on young adults' thinking about harms of and discouragement from WT smoking.
METHODS
We conducted a between-subjects experiment in a nationally representative telephone survey of 1152 young adults aged 18-29. Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of five warning statements and reported how much, on a 4-point scale, the warning made them think about the harms and discouraged them from WT smoking.
RESULTS
The sample was 36.8% female, 57.8% white, 20.2% Black, 24.1% Hispanic, with a mean age of 23.2 (SE = 0.25). Under half (43.5%) had ever smoked WT. There were significant differences among the statements on both thinking about harms (p < .0001) and discouragement (p < .0001). The FDA-required "nicotine" warning led to the lowest thinking about harms (M = 2.85, SE = 0.08) and was the least discouraging (M = 2.86, SE = 0.08), while the "100 cigarettes" warning resulted in the greatest thinking about harms (M = 3.62, SE = 0.05) and was the most discouraging (M = 3.56, SE = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
The nicotine warning resulted in the lowest levels of thinking about harms and discouragement from WT smoking, suggesting limited impact. However, a warning focused on comparing smoke inhalation from WT smoking to cigarettes seems promising. Warnings should cover a broad range of WT health effects, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes. Findings also have implications for the content of international waterpipe warnings.
IMPLICATIONS
This study indicates that the nicotine warning is the least effective at making young adults think about the harms of and discouraging WT smoking. The FDA and other countries should consider requiring warnings to cover a broader range of health harms, misperceptions, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34077539
pii: 6291027
doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab107
pmc: PMC8562359
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1855-1860Subventions
Organisme : FDA HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA180907
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Curr Pulmonol Rep. 2015 Dec 1;4(4):163-172
pubmed: 26756025
Health Educ Behav. 2016 Jun;43(3):328-36
pubmed: 26304709
J Health Commun. 2016 Jul;21(7):818-25
pubmed: 27337629
Tob Control. 2011 Sep;20(5):327-37
pubmed: 21606180
Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 May 3;20(6):731-740
pubmed: 28340148
Ann Behav Med. 2019 Mar 1;53(3):232-243
pubmed: 29850764
Int J Public Health. 2016 Jul;61(6):709-715
pubmed: 26971508
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Dec;37(6):518-23
pubmed: 19944918
Tob Control. 2016 May;25(3):341-54
pubmed: 25948713
Tob Control. 2015 Mar;24 Suppl 1:i22-i30
pubmed: 25666550
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Jul;18(7):1581-7
pubmed: 26764259
Int J Public Health. 2017 Jan;62(1):73-83
pubmed: 27421466
Atmos Environ (1994). 2010 Jan 1;44(1):8-14
pubmed: 20161525
Tob Control. 2017 Jan;26(1):92-97
pubmed: 27165994
Harm Reduct J. 2013 Jul 02;10:12
pubmed: 23816366
Tob Control. 2019 Aug;28(e1):e37-e42
pubmed: 30635367
Tob Regul Sci. 2020 Jul;6(4):279-288
pubmed: 34337105
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 09;5(9):e009497
pubmed: 26353876
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 May 1;115(1-2):131-6
pubmed: 21353750
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Sep 1;122(5):905-909
pubmed: 30057235
Tob Induc Dis. 2009 Dec 18;5(1):16
pubmed: 20021672
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Aug 19;21(9):1151-1161
pubmed: 29660041
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jul 1;176(7):905-12
pubmed: 27273839
Tob Control. 2015 Mar;24 Suppl 1:i13-i21
pubmed: 25618895
Nicotine Tob Res. 2009 Jul;11(7):806-11
pubmed: 19420278
Health Commun. 2019 Mar;34(3):343-351
pubmed: 29236565
Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Nov;46(11):3546-9
pubmed: 18834915
Nicotine Tob Res. 2011 Feb;13(2):78-87
pubmed: 21127030
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):32-43
pubmed: 27075769
Health Commun. 2020 Feb;35(2):148-157
pubmed: 30482058
Tob Control. 2019 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 31292169
Tob Use Insights. 2017 Apr 11;10:1179173X17696055
pubmed: 28579844
Med J Aust. 2015 May 4;202(8):446-7
pubmed: 25929510
Tob Control. 2015 Mar;24 Suppl 1:i31-i43
pubmed: 25661414
Chest. 2011 Apr;139(4):764-774
pubmed: 20671057
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 9;13(2):e0192191
pubmed: 29425207
Nicotine Tob Res. 2008 Feb;10(2):393-8
pubmed: 18236304
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Feb 3;65(4):327-335
pubmed: 25634830
Nicotine Tob Res. 2020 Jun 12;22(7):1131-1138
pubmed: 31593586
Tob Induc Dis. 2019 May 15;17:41
pubmed: 31516484
Arch Toxicol. 2015 Nov;89(11):2129-39
pubmed: 25248501
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Jul 1;116(1-3):102-9
pubmed: 21277706
Tob Control. 2017 Nov;26(6):649-655
pubmed: 27807299