Nancy C Jao1,2, Natasha A Sokol3, Chrystal Vergara-Lopez1,2, Katelyn Borba2, Lori A J Scott-Sheldon1, Laura R Stroud1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 2. Center for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Menthol cigarette use among women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy is high, but little is known about the factors that contribute to preference for menthol cigarette use during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated preferences, perceptions, and intentions to use menthol vs. non-menthol cigarettes in a sample of pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women (N = 124, Mage = 26.2 years, 50% minorities) completed a study investigating the impact of maternal smoking on biobehavioral markers of fetal risk. During the third trimester, participants self-reported preferences (liking, attractiveness, smoothness, interest), perceptions of harm (general, pregnancy-specific), and intentions to use menthol and non-menthol cigarettes. We examined differences in responses based on whether participants endorsed (1) cigarette use during pregnancy (yes/no) and (2) lifetime cigarette use (yes/no). RESULTS: Sixty-two participants endorsed cigarette smoking during pregnancy (85.5% smoked menthol cigarettes), and 94 participants reported lifetime use. Overall, menthol cigarettes were perceived as more likeable and smoother vs. non-menthol (ps < .001) - even among participants who never smoked cigarettes (ps < .05). All participants rated both menthol and non-menthol cigarette use as harmful. Compared to participants who did not smoke during pregnancy, participants who smoked during pregnancy rated menthol cigarettes as less harmful for pregnant women (p = .001), while there were no differences between groups in harm perceptions toward non-menthol cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Menthol may increase cigarettes appeal for pregnant women. Implications for regulation of menthol cigarettes are discussed. Future studies may investigate the role of sensory perception, marketing, and health education in influencing these factors.
BACKGROUND: Menthol cigarette use among women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy is high, but little is known about the factors that contribute to preference for menthol cigarette use during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated preferences, perceptions, and intentions to use menthol vs. non-menthol cigarettes in a sample of pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women (N = 124, Mage = 26.2 years, 50% minorities) completed a study investigating the impact of maternal smoking on biobehavioral markers of fetal risk. During the third trimester, participants self-reported preferences (liking, attractiveness, smoothness, interest), perceptions of harm (general, pregnancy-specific), and intentions to use menthol and non-menthol cigarettes. We examined differences in responses based on whether participants endorsed (1) cigarette use during pregnancy (yes/no) and (2) lifetime cigarette use (yes/no). RESULTS: Sixty-two participants endorsed cigarette smoking during pregnancy (85.5% smoked menthol cigarettes), and 94 participants reported lifetime use. Overall, menthol cigarettes were perceived as more likeable and smoother vs. non-menthol (ps < .001) - even among participants who never smoked cigarettes (ps < .05). All participants rated both menthol and non-menthol cigarette use as harmful. Compared to participants who did not smoke during pregnancy, participants who smoked during pregnancy rated menthol cigarettes as less harmful for pregnant women (p = .001), while there were no differences between groups in harm perceptions toward non-menthol cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Menthol may increase cigarettes appeal for pregnant women. Implications for regulation of menthol cigarettes are discussed. Future studies may investigate the role of sensory perception, marketing, and health education in influencing these factors.
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Alexis Barton; Jessica Rath; Bethany Simard; Shyanika W Rose; Elizabeth Hair; Donna Vallone Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: Laura R Stroud; George D Papandonatos; Katelyn Borba; Tessa Kehoe; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Laura Stroud; Erika Werner; Kristen Matteson; Michael Carey; Gideon St Helen; Thomas Eissenberg; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Lauren K Collins; Raymond S Niaura; Stacey Y Gagosian; David B Abrams Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: MeLisa R Creamer; Teresa W Wang; Stephen Babb; Karen A Cullen; Hannah Day; Gordon Willis; Ahmed Jamal; Linda Neff Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 17.586