Annette R Kaufman1, Heather D'Angelo2, Anna Gaysynsky2,3, Andrew B Seidenberg4, Robert E Vollinger5, Kelly D Blake2. 1. Tobacco Control Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 2. Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 3. ICF Next Government, ICF, Rockville, MD, USA. 4. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 5. Policy, Planning and Coordination Unit, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule requiring new warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. This study examines population-level characteristics of support for-versus neutrality or opposition toward-cigarette pack warnings that use text and images to portray the negative health effects of smoking. METHODS: We used nationally representative cross-sectional data of US adults age 18 and older from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3865). Frequencies and weighted proportions were calculated for neutrality toward, opposition to, and support for pictorial warnings across sociodemographics and other predictors. Weighted, multivariable logistic regression examined predictors of being neutral or opposed versus supportive of pictorial warnings. RESULTS: In 2020, an estimated 69.9% of US adults supported pictorial warnings, 9.1% opposed, and 20.9% neither supported nor opposed them. In fully adjusted models, current smokers had almost twice the odds of being neutral or opposed to pictorial warnings as never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.99, confidence interval [CI] 1.12, 3.52). Adults 75 years and older (vs. 18-34) (OR = 0.55, CI 0.33, 0.94) and those with children under 18 in their household (vs. no children) (OR = 0.67, CI 0.46, 0.98) were less likely to be neutral or opposed. CONCLUSIONS: In advance of the Food and Drug Administration's implementation of pictorial warnings on cigarette packages, nearly 70% of American adults support this policy. Disseminating information about the effectiveness of pictorial warnings may further strengthen support among current smokers who are less supportive than never smokers. Furthermore, framing messages around the benefits of pictorial warnings for protecting youth may increase public support. IMPLICATIONS: While public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packages is high in the United States, it may increase further after policy implementation and be strengthened by utilizing information campaigns that convey the evidence that pictorial warnings are an effective public health strategy.
INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule requiring new warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. This study examines population-level characteristics of support for-versus neutrality or opposition toward-cigarette pack warnings that use text and images to portray the negative health effects of smoking. METHODS: We used nationally representative cross-sectional data of US adults age 18 and older from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3865). Frequencies and weighted proportions were calculated for neutrality toward, opposition to, and support for pictorial warnings across sociodemographics and other predictors. Weighted, multivariable logistic regression examined predictors of being neutral or opposed versus supportive of pictorial warnings. RESULTS: In 2020, an estimated 69.9% of US adults supported pictorial warnings, 9.1% opposed, and 20.9% neither supported nor opposed them. In fully adjusted models, current smokers had almost twice the odds of being neutral or opposed to pictorial warnings as never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.99, confidence interval [CI] 1.12, 3.52). Adults 75 years and older (vs. 18-34) (OR = 0.55, CI 0.33, 0.94) and those with children under 18 in their household (vs. no children) (OR = 0.67, CI 0.46, 0.98) were less likely to be neutral or opposed. CONCLUSIONS: In advance of the Food and Drug Administration's implementation of pictorial warnings on cigarette packages, nearly 70% of American adults support this policy. Disseminating information about the effectiveness of pictorial warnings may further strengthen support among current smokers who are less supportive than never smokers. Furthermore, framing messages around the benefits of pictorial warnings for protecting youth may increase public support. IMPLICATIONS: While public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packages is high in the United States, it may increase further after policy implementation and be strengthened by utilizing information campaigns that convey the evidence that pictorial warnings are an effective public health strategy.
Authors: Shyanika W Rose; Sherry L Emery; Susan Ennett; Heath Luz McNaughton Reyes; John C Scott; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: G T Fong; A Hyland; R Borland; D Hammond; G Hastings; A McNeill; S Anderson; K M Cummings; S Allwright; M Mulcahy; F Howell; L Clancy; M E Thompson; G Connolly; P Driezen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Bradford W Hesse; Robert T Croyle; Gordon Willis; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; K V Viswanath; Neil Weinstein; Sara Alden Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2004 Sep-Oct
Authors: Seth M Noar; Diane B Francis; Christy Bridges; Jennah M Sontag; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Lauren Czaplicki; Siobhan N Perks; Michael Liu; Alison Cuccia; Minal Patel; Donna Vallone; Barbara Schillo Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Marissa G Hall; Theresa M Marteau; Cass R Sunstein; Kurt M Ribisl; Seth M Noar; Elizabeth N Orlan; Noel T Brewer Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2018-02-06
Authors: Lila J Finney Rutten; Kelly D Blake; Victoria G Skolnick; Terisa Davis; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 7.196