M. Justin Byron

Online Social Networks and Smoking Cessation: A Scientific Research Agenda

Background Smoking remains one of the most pressing public health problems in the United States and internationally. The concurrent evolution of the Internet, social network science, and online communities offers a potential target for high-yield interventions capable of shifting population-level smoking rates and substantially improving public health. Objective Our objective was to convene leading practitioners in relevant disciplines to develop the core of a strategic research agenda on online social networks and their use for smoking cessation, with implications for other health behaviors. Methods We conducted a 100-person, 2-day, multidisciplinary workshop in Washington, DC, USA. Participants worked in small groups to formulate research questions that could move the field forward. Discussions and resulting questions were synthesized by the workshop planning committee. Results We considered 34 questions in four categories (advancing theory, understanding fundamental mechanisms, intervention approaches, and evaluation) to be the most pressing. Conclusions Online social networks might facilitate smoking cessation in several ways. Identifying new theories, translating these into functional interventions, and evaluating the results will require a concerted transdisciplinary effort. This report presents a series of research questions to assist researchers, developers, and funders in the process of efficiently moving this field forward.

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

Introduction The Tobacco Control Act requires public disclosure of information about toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. To inform these efforts, we studied public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents. Methods We conducted phone surveys with national probability samples of adolescents (n=1125) and adults (n=5014) and an internet survey with a convenience sample of adults (n=4137), all in the USA. We assessed understanding of cigarette smoke constituents in general and of 24 specific constituents. Results Respondents commonly and incorrectly believed that harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke mostly originate in additives introduced by cigarette manufacturers (43–72%). Almost all participants had heard that nicotine is in cigarette smoke, and many had also heard about carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and formaldehyde. Less than one-quarter had heard of most other listed constituents being in cigarette smoke. Constituents most likely to discourage respondents from wanting to smoke were ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, lead and uranium. Respondents more often reported being discouraged by constituents that they had heard are in cigarette smoke (all p<0.05). Constituents with names that started with a number or ended in ‘ene’ or ‘ine’ were less likely to discourage people from wanting to smoke (all p<0.05). Discussion Many people were unaware that burning the cigarette is the primary source of toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. Constituents that may most discourage cigarette smoking have familiar names, like arsenic and formaldehyde and do not start with a number or end in ene/ine. Our findings may help campaign designers develop constituent messages that discourage smoking.

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

Objectives We sought to investigate adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of an American Spirit advertisement with ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ descriptors and related disclaimers. Methods We conducted nine focus group discussions in the Southern USA, with 59 participants aged 13–64 years (30 male, 29 female), stratified by age, smoking status and susceptibility to smoking. We conducted thematic content analysis of the transcripts. Results Many participants were sceptical or confused about the ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ descriptors. Many participants viewed American Spirit cigarettes as being less, or possibly less harmful than other cigarettes, even though the ad contained disclaimers explicitly stating that these cigarettes are not safer. Some participants said that people tend to ignore disclaimers, a few expressed doubt that the disclaimers were fully true, and others did not notice the disclaimers. A few smokers said they smoke American Spirit cigarettes because they think they are not as bad for them as other cigarettes. Conclusions Disclaimers intended to prevent consumers from attributing a health benefit to cigarettes labelled as ‘natural’, ‘additive-free’, or ‘organic’ may be insufficient. A ban on these descriptors may be a more appropriate remedy than disclaimers.

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Laws and treaties compel countries to inform the public about harmful chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke. To encourage relevant research by behavioral scientists, we provide a primer on cigarette smoke toxicology and summarize research on how the public thinks about cigarette smoke chemicals. We systematically searched PubMed in July 2016 and reviewed citations from included articles. Four central findings emerged across 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. First, people were familiar with very few chemicals in cigarette smoke. Second, people knew little about cigarette additives, assumed harmful chemicals are added during manufacturing, and perceived cigarettes without additives to be less harmful. Third, people wanted more information about constituents. Finally, well-presented chemical information increased knowledge and awareness and may change behavior. This research area is in urgent need of behavioral science. Future research should investigate whether educating the public about these chemicals increases risk perceptions and quitting.

Influence of religious organisations' statements on compliance with a smoke-free law in Bogor, Indonesia: A qualitative study

Objective To explore the Bogor publics perspective on Muslim organisations’ pronouncements against smoking and the effect of these pronouncements on compliance with a new smoke-free law in the context of a prosmoking social norm. Design Semistructured focus group discussions were conducted, transcribed, coded using ATLAS.ti software, and analysed using thematic content analysis. Photo elicitation was also used during the focus groups. Setting Bogor, Indonesia. Participants 11 focus groups (n=89), stratified by age, gender and smoking status, with members of the public (46 male, 43 female, ages 18–50). Results There was limited knowledge of and compliance with both the smoke-free law and the religious pronouncements. In most of the focus groups, smoking was described as a discouraged, but not forbidden, behaviour for Muslims. Participants described the decision of whether to follow the religious pronouncements in the context of individual choice. Some participants felt religious organisations lacked credibility to speak against smoking because many religious leaders themselves smoke. However, some non-smokers said their religion reinforced their non-smoking behaviour and some participants stated it would be useful for religious leaders to speak more about the smoke-free law. Conclusions Religious organisations’ pronouncements appear to have had a small effect, primarily in supporting the position of non-smokers not to smoke. Participants, including smokers, said their religious leaders should be involved in supporting the smoke-free law. These findings suggest there is potential for the tobacco control community to partner with sympathetic local Muslim leaders to promote common goals of reducing smoking and public smoke exposure. Muslim leaders’ views on smoking would be perceived as more credible if they themselves followed the smoke-free law. Additionally, public health messaging that includes religious themes could be piloted and tested for effectiveness. These findings may also inform similar efforts in other Muslim cities implementing smoke-free laws.

Public misperception that very low nicotine cigarettes are less carcinogenic

Objective The USA is considering a very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette standard. We sought to characterise the prevalence and correlates of the incorrect belief that VLNC cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes, as this could reduce motivation to quit. Methods Participants were a nationally representative sample of 650 adult smokers in the USA. In 2015–2016, before the VLNC proposal became public, these smokers took part in an online survey. We used multivariate weighted analyses to calculate ORs and percentages and a χ2 test to examine the association between variables. Results Overall, 47.1% of smokers believed that smoking VLNC cigarettes for 30 years would be less likely to cause cancer than smoking current cigarettes. This misperception was more common among smokers who were aged above 55 (56.6%) and black (57.4%). Additionally, 23.9% of smokers reported they would be less likely to quit if the USA adopted a VLNC standard. Thinking that VLNC cigarettes would be less carcinogenic was associated with smokers reporting they would be less likely to quit (P<0.01). Conclusions Many smokers had the misperception that smoking VLNC cigarettes is less likely to cause cancer, and some stated that they would be less likely to quit. A VLNC standard may be more effective if accompanied by a communication campaign that emphasises the continued dangers of smoking VLNC cigarettes due to the many toxic chemicals in smoke.

Impact of modified risk tobacco product claims on beliefs of US adults and adolescents

Objective Under US law, tobacco product marketing may claim lower exposure to chemicals, or lower risk of health harms, only if these claims do not mislead the public. We sought to examine the impact of such marketing claims about potential modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). Methods Participants were national samples of 4797 adults and 969 adolescent US smokers and non-smokers. We provided information about a potential MRTP (heated tobacco product, electronic cigarette or snus). Experiment 1 stated that the MRTP was as harmful as cigarettes or less harmful (lower risk claim). Experiment 2 stated that the MRTP exposed users to a similar quantity of harmful chemicals as cigarettes or to fewer chemicals (lower exposure claim). Results Claiming lower risk led to lower perceived quantity of chemicals and lower perceived risk among adults and adolescents (all p<0.05, Experiment 1). Among adults, this claim led to higher susceptibility to using the MRTP (p<0.05). Claiming lower exposure led to lower perceived chemical quantity and lower perceived risk (all p<0.05), but had no effect on use susceptibility (Experiment 2). Participants thought that snus exposed users to more chemicals and was less safe to use than heated tobacco products or electronic cigarette MRTPs (Experiments 1 and 2). Discussion Risk and exposure claims acted similarly on MRTP beliefs. Lower exposure claims misled the public to perceive lower perceived risk even though no lower risk claim was explicitly made, which is impermissible under US law.

Website Designs for Communicating About Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke

ABSTRACT The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the US government to inform the public about the quantities of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. A website can accomplish this task efficiently, but the site’s user interface must be usable to benefit the general public. We conducted online experiments with national convenience samples of 1,451 US adult smokers and nonsmokers to examine the impact of four interface display elements: the chemicals, their associated health effects, quantity information, and a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were perceptions of user experience (perceived clarity and usability), motivation (willingness to use), and potential impact (elaboration about the harms of smoking). We found displaying health effects as text with icons, providing quantity information for chemicals (e.g., ranges), and showing a visual risk indicator all improved the user experience of a webpage about chemicals in cigarette smoke (all p < .05). Displaying a combination of familiar and unfamiliar chemicals, providing quantity information for chemicals, and showing a visual risk indicator all improved motivation to use the webpage (all p < .05). Displaying health effects or quantity information increased the potential impact of the webpage (all p < .05). Overall, interface designs displaying health effects of chemicals in cigarette smoke as text with icons and with a visual risk indicator had the greatest impact on the user experience, motivation, and potential impact of the website. Our findings provide guidance for accessible website designs that can inform consumers about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Adolescent tobacco coupon receipt, vulnerability characteristics and subsequent tobacco use: analysis of PATH Study, Waves 1 and 2

Objectives We examine adolescent receipt of tobacco coupons and subsequent tobacco use. Methods Data were from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013–2015). We identified correlates of coupon receipt at Wave 1 (youth sample age 12–17 ; n = 13 651) including demographics, additional vulnerability factors that may place youth at risk of tobacco use and correlates of coupon receipt by channel. We examined associations of Wave 1 coupon receipt with Wave 2 tobacco use using weighted multivariable models. Results Overall, 7.6% of US youth received tobacco coupons in the 6 months before Wave 1. Coupon recipients were more likely to be women, living outside urban areas, living with a tobacco user, current and former (vs never) tobacco users, having high internalising mental health symptoms and having a favourite tobacco advertisement. Coupons were received primarily through direct mail (56%), product packs (28%) and online (25%). Never tobacco users at Wave 1 who received coupons were more likely to be ever users at Wave 2 (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.42; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.91). Coupon recipients were more likely to use a new tobacco product between waves (aOR=1.67; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.36) and report past 30-day tobacco use at Wave 2 (aOR=1.81; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.49). Conclusions One in 13 US youth (7.6%) received coupons. Vulnerable youth had the greatest odds of coupon receipt. Coupon recipients had greater odds of tobacco use among never users, trying a new tobacco product and current use. Coupon bans, limits on youth coupon exposure, stronger age verification, pack inserts or restricting coupon redemption may help reduce tobacco use among adolescents, particularly for those at greatest risk.

Brand switching and toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke: A national study

Introduction US law requires disclosure of quantities of toxic chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke by brand and sub-brand. This information may drive smokers to switch to cigarettes with lower chemical quantities, under the misperception that doing so can reduce health risk. We sought to understand past brand-switching behavior and whether learning about specific chemicals in cigarette smoke increases susceptibility to brand switching. Methods Participants were US adult smokers surveyed by phone (n = 1,151, probability sample) and online (n = 1,561, convenience sample). Surveys assessed whether smokers had ever switched cigarette brands or styles to reduce health risk and about likelihood of switching if the smoker learned their brand had more of a specific chemical than other cigarettes. Chemicals presented were nicotine, carbon monoxide, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia. Results Past brand switching to reduce health risk was common among smokers (43% in phone survey, 28% in online survey). Smokers who were female, over 25, and current “light” cigarette users were more likely to have switched brands to reduce health risks (all p < .05). Overall, 61–92% of smokers were susceptible to brand switching based on information about particular chemicals. In both samples, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia led to more susceptibility to switch than nicotine (all p < .05). Conclusions Many US smokers have switched brands or styles to reduce health risks. The majority said they might or would definitely switch brands if they learned their cigarettes had more of a toxic chemical than other brands. Brand switching is a probable unintended consequence of communications that show differences in smoke chemicals between brands.