Shoba Ramanadhan1, Rebekah H Nagler2, Rachel McCloud3, Racquel Kohler4, Kasisomayajula Viswanath5. 1. Center for Community-based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW601, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: shoba_ramanadhan@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, 206 Church St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States. Electronic address: nagle026@umn.edu. 3. Center for Community-based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW601, Boston, MA 02215, United States. Electronic address: rachel_faulkenberry@dfci.harvard.edu. 4. Center for Community-based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW601, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: racquel_kohler@dfci.harvard.edu. 5. Center for Community-based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW601, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: vish_viswanath@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Graphic health warnings (GHWs) on cigarette packages present an important tobacco control opportunity, particularly for vulnerable populations suffering a disproportionate tobacco burden. One mechanism by which GHWs may influence smoking outcomes is by prompting interpersonal discussions within health discussion networks (the set of personal contacts with whom an individual discusses health issues). OBJECTIVE: The study examined the association between GHW-prompted conversations within health discussion networks and key tobacco-related outcomes, with attention to valence and content of the discussions. METHOD: Between August 2013 and April 2014, we recruited 1200 individuals from three communities in Massachusetts, emphasizing recruitment of individuals of low socioeconomic position (SEP) and members of other selected vulnerable groups. Respondents were exposed to the nine GHWs proposed by the FDA in 2011, asked a series of questions, and assessed at follow-up a few weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 806 individuals were included in this analysis. About 51% of respondents reported having a health discussion network, with significantly lower reports among African-Americans and Hispanics compared to Whites. Around 70% of respondents (smokers and nonsmokers) with health discussion networks reported having one or more conversations about the GHWs with network members, the bulk of which were negative and focused on warning others about smoking. For smokers, we found a small but positive association between the percentage of network conversations that were negative and reports of quit attempts. CONCLUSION: The results point to a potential mechanism by which GHWs may impact tobacco-related outcomes, prompting further inquiry into the role of health discussion networks (and discussion networks, more broadly) in tobacco control among low SEP individuals.
RATIONALE: Graphic health warnings (GHWs) on cigarette packages present an important tobacco control opportunity, particularly for vulnerable populations suffering a disproportionate tobacco burden. One mechanism by which GHWs may influence smoking outcomes is by prompting interpersonal discussions within health discussion networks (the set of personal contacts with whom an individual discusses health issues). OBJECTIVE: The study examined the association between GHW-prompted conversations within health discussion networks and key tobacco-related outcomes, with attention to valence and content of the discussions. METHOD: Between August 2013 and April 2014, we recruited 1200 individuals from three communities in Massachusetts, emphasizing recruitment of individuals of low socioeconomic position (SEP) and members of other selected vulnerable groups. Respondents were exposed to the nine GHWs proposed by the FDA in 2011, asked a series of questions, and assessed at follow-up a few weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 806 individuals were included in this analysis. About 51% of respondents reported having a health discussion network, with significantly lower reports among African-Americans and Hispanics compared to Whites. Around 70% of respondents (smokers and nonsmokers) with health discussion networks reported having one or more conversations about the GHWs with network members, the bulk of which were negative and focused on warning others about smoking. For smokers, we found a small but positive association between the percentage of network conversations that were negative and reports of quit attempts. CONCLUSION: The results point to a potential mechanism by which GHWs may impact tobacco-related outcomes, prompting further inquiry into the role of health discussion networks (and discussion networks, more broadly) in tobacco control among low SEP individuals.
Authors: Amy McQueen; Matthew W Kreuter; Sonia Boyum; Vetta S Thompson; Charlene A Caburnay; Erika A Waters; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Suchitra Rath; Qiang Fu Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Seth M Noar; Diane B Francis; Christy Bridges; Jennah M Sontag; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: James F Thrasher; Erika N Abad-Vivero; Liling Huang; Richard J O'Connor; David Hammond; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; Barry Markovsky; James Hardin Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Donna M Vallone; James F Thrasher; Rebekah H Nagler; Shari P Feirman; Larry R Muenz; David Y He; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer C Morgan; Brian G Southwell; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Shelley D Golden; Noel T Brewer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sahara Byrne; Amelia Greiner Safi; Deena Kemp; Christofer Skurka; Julie Davydova; Leah Scolere; Alan D Mathios; Rosemary J Avery; Michael C Dorf; Joseph Steinhardt; Jeff Niederdeppe Journal: Health Commun Date: 2017-12-13
Authors: James F Thrasher; Noel T Brewer; Jeff Niederdeppe; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Rachel Grana; Annette R Kaufman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer C Morgan; Shelley D Golden; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Brian G Southwell; Michelle Jeong; Marissa G Hall; Noel T Brewer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Deanna Teoh; Rida Shaikh; Abigail Schnaith; Emil Lou; Annie-Laurie McRee; Rebekah H Nagler; Rachel I Vogel Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2019-01-11