Sarah D Kowitt1, Kristen L Jarman1, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross2, Leah M Ranney1, Caleb A Smith3, Christine E Kistler1,3, Allison J Lazard4,5, Paschal Sheeran4,6, James F Thrasher7, Adam O Goldstein1,4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA. 3. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 7. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little systematic evidence exists about the effectiveness of cigar warnings. This study examined the perceived message effectiveness (PME) of warning statements about different health consequences caused by cigars. PME is a validated self-report scale of how effectively a health message discourages smoking. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted an online study from April to May 2020 with adults in the United States who used cigars in the past 30 days (n = 777). Participants were randomly assigned to view and rate PME (three items, range 1-5) for seven out of 37 text warning statements about different health consequences from cigar use. Linear mixed effects models evaluated the most effective warning characteristics (eg, type of health consequence), controlling for repeated measures and participant demographics. RESULTS: Analyses showed that health consequences about the cardiovascular system (B = 0.38), mouth (B = 0.40), other digestive (B = 0.45), respiratory system (B = 0.36), and early death (B = 0.36) were associated with higher PME scores than reproductive health consequences (all p values <.001). Similar results were found for these health consequences compared with addiction (all p values p < .001). We also observed that awareness of the health consequence was associated with higher PME scores (B = 0.19, p < .001) and length of the warning message (number of characters) was associated with lower PME scores (B = -0.007, p = .03). No differences were observed between cancer and noncancer health consequences (p = .27) or health consequences that used plain language versus medical jargon (p = .94). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new evidence about the perceived effectiveness of different cigar health warning statements and identifies features that may strengthen statements. IMPLICATIONS: Our study with cigar smokers from across the United States provides much-needed evidence concerning the perceived effectiveness of different cigar health warning statements and features that may strengthen such statements. Mandated cigar warnings in the United States could be strengthened by including health consequences that were perceived as more effective in our study (eg, early death), using health consequences that participants were aware of, and using short warning statements.
INTRODUCTION: Little systematic evidence exists about the effectiveness of cigar warnings. This study examined the perceived message effectiveness (PME) of warning statements about different health consequences caused by cigars. PME is a validated self-report scale of how effectively a health message discourages smoking. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted an online study from April to May 2020 with adults in the United States who used cigars in the past 30 days (n = 777). Participants were randomly assigned to view and rate PME (three items, range 1-5) for seven out of 37 text warning statements about different health consequences from cigar use. Linear mixed effects models evaluated the most effective warning characteristics (eg, type of health consequence), controlling for repeated measures and participant demographics. RESULTS: Analyses showed that health consequences about the cardiovascular system (B = 0.38), mouth (B = 0.40), other digestive (B = 0.45), respiratory system (B = 0.36), and early death (B = 0.36) were associated with higher PME scores than reproductive health consequences (all p values <.001). Similar results were found for these health consequences compared with addiction (all p values p < .001). We also observed that awareness of the health consequence was associated with higher PME scores (B = 0.19, p < .001) and length of the warning message (number of characters) was associated with lower PME scores (B = -0.007, p = .03). No differences were observed between cancer and noncancer health consequences (p = .27) or health consequences that used plain language versus medical jargon (p = .94). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new evidence about the perceived effectiveness of different cigar health warning statements and identifies features that may strengthen statements. IMPLICATIONS: Our study with cigar smokers from across the United States provides much-needed evidence concerning the perceived effectiveness of different cigar health warning statements and features that may strengthen such statements. Mandated cigar warnings in the United States could be strengthened by including health consequences that were perceived as more effective in our study (eg, early death), using health consequences that participants were aware of, and using short warning statements.
Authors: F Baker; S R Ainsworth; J T Dye; C Crammer; M J Thun; D Hoffmann; J L Repace; J E Henningfield; J Slade; J Pinney; T Shanks; D M Burns; G N Connolly; D R Shopland Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Jennifer C Morgan; Sabeeh A Baig; Jennifer R Mendel; Marcella H Boynton; Jessica K Pepper; M Justin Byron; Seth M Noar; Robert P Agans; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Dannielle E Kelley; Marcella H Boynton; Seth M Noar; Jennifer C Morgan; Jennifer R Mendel; Kurt M Ribisl; Irina Stepanov; Leena A Nylander-French; Noel T Brewer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kristen L Jarman; Sarah D Kowitt; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Adam O Goldstein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stefanie K Gratale; Michelle Jeong; Anupreet Sidhu; Zeinab Safi; Andrew A Strasser; Cristine D Delnevo; Olivia A Wackowski Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Stefanie K Gratale; Arjun Teotia; Julia Chen-Sankey; Ollie Ganz; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrew A Strasser; Olivia A Wackowski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390