Seth M Noar1, Jacob A Rohde2, Casey Horvitz3, Allison J Lazard4, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross5, Erin L Sutfin5. 1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: noar@unc.edu. 2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. 4. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. 5. Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use among adolescents has dramatically risen since 2011, yet little research has tested e-cigarette harms messages among adolescents. We conducted a pretest-posttest pilot study to examine adolescents' receptivity to e-cigarette health harms messages delivered using text messaging. METHODS: N = 69 adolescents were enrolled in an 8-day pretest-posttest text messaging study. Participants completed a pretest survey on day one, were texted one of three e-cigarette health harms messages per day on days two through seven, and completed a posttest survey on day eight (88% retention). We assessed message ratings at posttest and knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs about e-cigarette harms at pretest and posttest. RESULTS: Adolescents rated the three messages favorably, with both the chemical and brain messages scoring higher than the nicotine message on fear arousal and perceived message effectiveness. More than one-third of adolescents showed the messages to others and talked to others about the messages. At posttest, knowledge about the harms of e-cigarettes, thinking about the risks of e-cigarettes, and perceived risks of e-cigarettes were all significantly higher compared to pretest (p < .05). Participants largely adhered to the text messaging protocol and found the study highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that adolescents are receptive to e-cigarette health harms messages and that delivering such messages using text messaging is feasible and acceptable. Future research should systematically develop and test a broad set of e-cigarette health harms messages and examine their impact in a randomized controlled trial.
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use among adolescents has dramatically risen since 2011, yet little research has tested e-cigarette harms messages among adolescents. We conducted a pretest-posttest pilot study to examine adolescents' receptivity to e-cigarette health harms messages delivered using text messaging. METHODS: N = 69 adolescents were enrolled in an 8-day pretest-posttest text messaging study. Participants completed a pretest survey on day one, were texted one of three e-cigarette health harms messages per day on days two through seven, and completed a posttest survey on day eight (88% retention). We assessed message ratings at posttest and knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs about e-cigarette harms at pretest and posttest. RESULTS: Adolescents rated the three messages favorably, with both the chemical and brain messages scoring higher than the nicotine message on fear arousal and perceived message effectiveness. More than one-third of adolescents showed the messages to others and talked to others about the messages. At posttest, knowledge about the harms of e-cigarettes, thinking about the risks of e-cigarettes, and perceived risks of e-cigarettes were all significantly higher compared to pretest (p < .05). Participants largely adhered to the text messaging protocol and found the study highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that adolescents are receptive to e-cigarette health harms messages and that delivering such messages using text messaging is feasible and acceptable. Future research should systematically develop and test a broad set of e-cigarette health harms messages and examine their impact in a randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Jennifer C Duke; Erik C Crankshaw; Matthew E Eggers; Youn O Lee; James M Nonnemaker; Annice E Kim; Lauren Porter Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Samir Soneji; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Thomas A Wills; Adam M Leventhal; Jennifer B Unger; Laura A Gibson; JaeWon Yang; Brian A Primack; Judy A Andrews; Richard A Miech; Tory R Spindle; Danielle M Dick; Thomas Eissenberg; Robert C Hornik; Rui Dang; James D Sargent Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Andrea Gentzke; S Sean Hu; Karen A Cullen; Benjamin J Apelberg; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jennifer C Duke; Tesfa N Alexander; Xiaoquan Zhao; Janine C Delahanty; Jane A Allen; Anna J MacMonegle; Matthew C Farrelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Allison J Lazard; Adam J Saffer; Gary B Wilcox; Arnold DongWoo Chung; Michael S Mackert; Jay M Bernhardt Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2016-12-12
Authors: Jacob A Rohde; Seth M Noar; Casey Horvitz; Allison J Lazard; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Joshua O Barker; Dannielle E Kelley; Seth M Noar; Beth A Reboussin; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Michelle Jeong; Marissa G Hall; Sabeeh A Baig; Jennifer R Mendel; Allison J Lazard; Seth M Noar; Madeline R Kameny; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jacob A Rohde; Seth M Noar; Jennifer Mendel Sheldon; Marissa G Hall; Talia Kieu; Noel T Brewer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Francisco Cartujano-Barrera; Ruthmarie Hernández-Torrez; Xueya Cai; Rafael H Orfin; Chiamaka Azogini; Arlette Chávez-Iñiguez; Edgar Santa Cruz; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Karen M Wilson; Scott McIntosh; Deborah J Ossip; Ana Paula Cupertino Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Margie R Skeer; Rachael A Sabelli; Katherine M Rancaño; Michelle Lee-Bravatti; Emma C Ryan; Misha Eliasziw; Anthony Spirito Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240