Andy S L Tan1, Vaughan W Rees2, Justin Rodgers2, Emeka Agudile2, Natasha A Sokol2, Kyeungyeun Yie3, Ashley Sanders-Jackson3. 1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Population Sciences Division, Center for Community Based Research, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: andy_tan@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Michigan State University, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of Communication Arts and Science, 404 Wilson Road, Lansing, MI, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anti-vaping public service announcements (PSAs) are intended to discourage vaping or use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). However, vaping portrayals in PSAs may have unintended effects if they increase smoking or vaping urges. This study examined benefits and unintended effects of anti-vaping PSAs with vapor portrayals on smoking and vaping-related outcomes. METHODS:Young adult smokers (N = 171) and dual users (N = 122) aged 21-30 years were randomly assigned to view: 1) anti-vaping PSAs with vapor; 2) anti-vaping PSAs without vapor; 3) physical activity PSAs; or 4) anti-smoking PSAs with smoking cues. Outcomes were changes in vaping and smoking urges before and after viewing PSAs, post-test vaping and smoking intentions in the next hour, and post-test intention to purchase ENDS and traditional cigarettes. RESULTS:Smokers only: Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs with vapor (vs. physical activity) was associated with lower intention to vape and to purchase ENDS (ps < 0.001) and lower intention to smoke and purchase cigarettes (ps < 0.05). Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs with vapor (vs. PSAs without vapor and vs. anti-smoking PSAs with smoking cues) was associated with lower intention to vape in the next hour (ps < 0.05). Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs without vapor (vs. physical activity) was associated with lower change in vaping urge (p < 0.05) and intention to purchase ENDS (p < 0.001). Dual users: Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs without vapor (vs. anti-smoking PSAs) was associated with lower intention to purchase ENDS (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Viewing anti-vaping PSAs with vapor was not associated with unintended effects and may have benefits on reducing smoking and vaping-related outcomes.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Anti-vaping public service announcements (PSAs) are intended to discourage vaping or use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). However, vaping portrayals in PSAs may have unintended effects if they increase smoking or vaping urges. This study examined benefits and unintended effects of anti-vaping PSAs with vapor portrayals on smoking and vaping-related outcomes. METHODS: Young adult smokers (N = 171) and dual users (N = 122) aged 21-30 years were randomly assigned to view: 1) anti-vaping PSAs with vapor; 2) anti-vaping PSAs without vapor; 3) physical activity PSAs; or 4) anti-smoking PSAs with smoking cues. Outcomes were changes in vaping and smoking urges before and after viewing PSAs, post-test vaping and smoking intentions in the next hour, and post-test intention to purchase ENDS and traditional cigarettes. RESULTS: Smokers only: Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs with vapor (vs. physical activity) was associated with lower intention to vape and to purchase ENDS (ps < 0.001) and lower intention to smoke and purchase cigarettes (ps < 0.05). Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs with vapor (vs. PSAs without vapor and vs. anti-smoking PSAs with smoking cues) was associated with lower intention to vape in the next hour (ps < 0.05). Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs without vapor (vs. physical activity) was associated with lower change in vaping urge (p < 0.05) and intention to purchase ENDS (p < 0.001). Dual users: Exposure to anti-vaping PSAs without vapor (vs. anti-smoking PSAs) was associated with lower intention to purchase ENDS (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Viewing anti-vaping PSAs with vapor was not associated with unintended effects and may have benefits on reducing smoking and vaping-related outcomes.
Authors: Robert C McMillen; Mark A Gottlieb; Regina M Whitmore Shaefer; Jonathan P Winickoff; Jonathan D Klein Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Michael S Dunbar; Thomas R Kirchner; Xiaoxue Li; Hilary A Tindle; Stewart J Anderson; Sarah M Scholl; Stuart G Ferguson Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Noreen L Watson; Matthew J Carpenter; Michael E Saladin; Kevin M Gray; Himanshu P Upadhyaya Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Deesha Patel; Kevin C Davis; Shanna Cox; Brian Bradfield; Brian A King; Paul Shafer; Ralph Caraballo; Rebecca Bunnell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Michael S Amato; Xi Wang; Kang Zhao; Sarah Cha; Amy M Cohn; George D Papandonatos; Amanda L Graham Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.244