Amy M Cohn1,2, Shyanika W Rose3, Vinu Ilakkuvan4, Tiffany Gray4, Laurel Curry4, Andrea C Villanti5,6, Darren Mays2, Eric Lindblom7, Kenneth Tercyak2, Charles Debnam8, Ashley Mayo3, Lexie Perreras1. 1. Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, VA. 2. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center; Washington, DC, USA. 3. Schroeder Institute at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC. 4. Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. 5. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 6. Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 7. O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 8. Community Wellness Alliance, Washington, DC.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Harm perceptions of menthol cigarettes may contribute to their appeal and use. African-Americans, women, and younger smokers disproportionately use menthol cigarettes, and may misperceive harm of menthol cigarettes. METHODS: Data were from Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Weighted analyses of current adult smokers (18 and older) were used to estimate the correlates of menthol smoking among all cigarette brands and separately for the top three cigarette brands (Newport, Camel, and Marlboro). Adjusted models examined the main effect of menthol smoking on harm perceptions of one's own brand of cigarette and interactions with race/ethnicity, age, and gender. RESULTS: Menthol cigarettes were used by nearly 40% of current smokers, although the prevalence of menthol smoking differed across the top three brands (94% Newport, 46% Camel, and 18% Marlboro). Among menthol smokers, 80% perceived their cigarette as equally harmful, 14% perceived their brand as more harmful, and 7% perceived their brand as less harmful. In adjusted models, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to misperceive their own brand as more harmful than other brands (compared to no difference in harm). Race and gender emerged as moderators of the association between menthol brand preference and harm perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: In adjusted analyses, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to perceive their brand as more harmful than other brands, with differences by sub-groups who disproportionately use menthol. IMPLICATIONS: Menthol cigarettes have been historically marketed with messages conveying lower harm than other cigarettes. Little is known about how contemporary adult menthol smokers perceive the harm of their usual brand, and potential differences by race, gender, and young adult versus older adult age group. After adjusting for other factors, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to perceive their cigarette brand as more harmful than other brands. Further, the association between menthol smoking and harm perceptions differed by race and gender, but not by age group (young adult vs. older adult). This type of large-scale study identifies critical links between menthol smoking and harm perceptions among vulnerable smokers that will inform regulatory actions designed to decrease smoking-related harm.
INTRODUCTION: Harm perceptions of menthol cigarettes may contribute to their appeal and use. African-Americans, women, and younger smokers disproportionately use menthol cigarettes, and may misperceive harm of menthol cigarettes. METHODS: Data were from Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Weighted analyses of current adult smokers (18 and older) were used to estimate the correlates of menthol smoking among all cigarette brands and separately for the top three cigarette brands (Newport, Camel, and Marlboro). Adjusted models examined the main effect of menthol smoking on harm perceptions of one's own brand of cigarette and interactions with race/ethnicity, age, and gender. RESULTS:Menthol cigarettes were used by nearly 40% of current smokers, although the prevalence of menthol smoking differed across the top three brands (94% Newport, 46% Camel, and 18% Marlboro). Among menthol smokers, 80% perceived their cigarette as equally harmful, 14% perceived their brand as more harmful, and 7% perceived their brand as less harmful. In adjusted models, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to misperceive their own brand as more harmful than other brands (compared to no difference in harm). Race and gender emerged as moderators of the association between menthol brand preference and harm perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: In adjusted analyses, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to perceive their brand as more harmful than other brands, with differences by sub-groups who disproportionately use menthol. IMPLICATIONS: Menthol cigarettes have been historically marketed with messages conveying lower harm than other cigarettes. Little is known about how contemporary adult menthol smokers perceive the harm of their usual brand, and potential differences by race, gender, and young adult versus older adult age group. After adjusting for other factors, menthol smokers were more likely than nonmenthol smokers to perceive their cigarette brand as more harmful than other brands. Further, the association between menthol smoking and harm perceptions differed by race and gender, but not by age group (young adult vs. older adult). This type of large-scale study identifies critical links between menthol smoking and harm perceptions among vulnerable smokers that will inform regulatory actions designed to decrease smoking-related harm.
Authors: Sarah D Mills; Lisa Henriksen; Shelley D Golden; Rachel Kurtzman; Amanda Y Kong; Tara L Queen; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Health Place Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Marissa Palmer; Jennifer W Tidey; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Maria R Cooper; Nicolle M Krebs; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Joy L Hart; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez; Farahnaz Islam; Yoo Jin Cho; Ramzi George Salloum; Jordan Louviere; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Joaquin Barnoya; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James Hardin; James F Thrasher Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Michael Kotlyar; Ryan Shanley; Sheena R Dufresne; Gretchen A Corcoran; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Anne M Mills; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Nicholas J Felicione; Kaila J Norton; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Vaughan W Rees; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Tob Prev Cessat Date: 2021-02-09