Literature DB >> 29793189

Effects of exposure to anti-vaping public service announcements among current smokers and dual users of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery systems.

Andy S L Tan1, Vaughan W Rees2, Justin Rodgers2, Emeka Agudile2, Natasha A Sokol2, Kyeungyeun Yie3, Ashley Sanders-Jackson3.   

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.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dual users; Electronic nicotine delivery systems; Public service announcements; Smokers

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29793189      PMCID: PMC6825509          DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.04.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend        ISSN: 0376-8716            Impact factor:   4.492


  31 in total

1.  Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings.

Authors:  L S Cox; S T Tiffany; A G Christen
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Young adults: vulnerable new targets of tobacco marketing.

Authors:  Lois Biener; Alison B Albers
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers.

Authors:  Janet Hoek; Christiane Wong; Philip Gendall; Jordan Louviere; Karen Cong
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  The effect of smoking cues in antismoking advertisements on smoking urge and psychophysiological reactions.

Authors:  Yahui Kang; Joseph N Cappella; Andrew A Strasser; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 4.244

5.  Trends in Electronic Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adults: Use is Increasing in Both Smokers and Nonsmokers.

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

6.  Effects of smoking cues and argument strength of antismoking advertisements on former smokers' self-efficacy, attitude, and intention to refrain from smoking.

Authors:  Sungkyoung Lee; Joseph N Cappella; Caryn Lerman; Andrew A Strasser
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 4.244

7.  Cue reactivity in non-daily smokers: effects on craving and on smoking behavior.

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

8.  Evidence for greater cue reactivity among low-dependent vs. high-dependent smokers.

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

9.  Reasons for current E-cigarette use among U.S. adults.

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

10.  How US Smokers Refer to E-cigarettes: An Examination of User-Generated Posts From a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Intervention, 2008-2015.

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

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Cue Reactivity to Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Merel Keijsers; Maria Cecilia Vega-Corredor; Simon Hoermann; Melanie Tomintz
Journal:  Subst Abuse       Date:  2022-07-28
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.