Dataset Information

Source Credibility and E-Cigarette Attitudes: Implications for Tobacco Communication.

ABSTRACT: As there are many conflicting sources of e-cigarette information, research is needed to determine the impact of these sources on e-cigarette attitudes to inform future communication campaigns. Source credibility is important in shaping attitudes toward other health topics; however, no study has examined its role in influencing e-cigarette attitudes. Data from the 2015 Health Information National Trends Survey-FDA (HINTS-FDA) were utilized to assess differences in trust in different sources by e-cigarette user status and to investigate the associations between trust in sources and e-cigarette attitudes (n = 3,738). Differences in trust in sources were examined using weighted linear regression. Associations between trust in sources of e-cigarette health effects and attitudes toward e-cigarettes were assessed using weighted logistic regression. Overall, e-cigarette ever users reported significantly lower trust in governmental agencies as compared to never users. Trust in e-cigarette companies was negatively associated with perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58, 1.00), while trust in doctors/pharmacists/healthcare providers was negatively associated with harm perceptions of e-cigarettes relative to conventional cigarettes (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.95). Trust in tobacco companies and trust in e-cigarette companies were negatively associated with absolute perceived harm of e-cigarettes (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51, 0.95; AOR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.79, respectively). Results from this study indicate that the associations between trust in sources of e-cigarette health effects and e-cigarette attitudes differ both by source and specific attitude assessed. Ultimately, future campaigns should incorporate messaging to discredit industry sources of information and utilize non-governmental sources to effectively influence e-cigarette attitudes.

SUBMITTER: Case KR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5732895 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Source Credibility and E-Cigarette Attitudes: Implications for Tobacco Communication.

Case Kathleen R KR Lazard Allison J AJ Mackert Michael S MS Perry Cheryl L CL

Health communication 20170616 9

As there are many conflicting sources of e-cigarette information, research is needed to determine the impact of these sources on e-cigarette attitudes to inform future communication campaigns. Source credibility is important in shaping attitudes toward other health topics; however, no study has examined its role in influencing e-cigarette attitudes. Data from the 2015 Health Information National Trends Survey-FDA (HINTS-FDA) were utilized to assess differences in trust in different sources by e- ...[more]

PMID: 28622021

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Evidence for the health harms of e-cigarettes is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful in health messaging. Our study sought to identify which harms tobacco product users were aware of and which most discouraged them from wanting to vape. METHODS:Participants were a convenience sample of 1,872 U.S. adult e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users recruited in August 2018. In an online survey, participants evaluated 40 e-cigarette harms from seven categories: chemical exposures, device explosions, addiction, cardiovascular harm, respiratory harm, e-liquid toxicity, and other harms. Outcomes were awareness of the harms ("check all that apply") and the extent to which the harms discouraged vaping (5-point scale; (1) "not at all" to (5) "very much"). RESULTS:Awareness of most e-cigarette harms was modest, being highest for harms in the device explosions category of harms (44%) and lowest for the e-liquid toxicity category (16%). The harms with the highest mean discouragement from wanting to vape were the respiratory harm (M = 3.82) and exposure to chemicals (M = 3.68) categories. Harms in the addiction category were the least discouraging (M = 2.83) compared with other harms (all p < .001). Findings were similar for e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users. CONCLUSIONS:Addiction was the least motivating e-cigarette harm, a notable finding given that the current FDA e-cigarette health warning communicates only about nicotine addiction. The next generation of e-cigarette health warnings and communication campaigns should highlight other harms, especially respiratory harms and the chemical exposures that may lead to health consequences. IMPLICATIONS:E-cigarette health harms related to respiratory effects, chemical exposures, and other health areas most discouraged vaping among tobacco users. In contrast, health harms about addiction least discouraged use. Several countries have begun implementing e-cigarette health warnings, including the United States, and many others are considering adopting similar policies. To increase impact, future warnings and other health communication efforts should communicate about health harms beyond addiction, such as the effects of e-cigarette use on respiratory health. Such efforts should communicate that e-cigarette use is risky and may pose less overall risk to human health than smoking, according to current evidence.

Project description:BackgroundIn health-related, Web-based information search, people should select information in line with expert (vs nonexpert) information, independent of their prior attitudes and consequent confirmation bias.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate confirmation bias in mental health-related information search, particularly (1) if high confidence worsens confirmation bias, (2) if social tags eliminate the influence of prior attitudes, and (3) if people successfully distinguish high and low source credibility.MethodsIn total, 520 participants of a representative sample of the German Web-based population were recruited via a panel company. Among them, 48.1% (250/520) participants completed the fully automated study. Participants provided prior attitudes about antidepressants and psychotherapy. We manipulated (1) confidence in prior attitudes when participants searched for blog posts about the treatment of depression, (2) tag popularity -either psychotherapy or antidepressant tags were more popular, and (3) source credibility with banners indicating high or low expertise of the tagging community. We measured tag and blog post selection, and treatmentefficacy ratings after navigation.ResultsTag popularity predicted the proportion of selected antidepressant tags (beta=.44, SE 0.11; P<.001) and blog posts (beta=.46, SE 0.11; P<.001). When confidence was low (-1 SD), participants selected more blog posts consistent with prior attitudes (beta=-.26, SE 0.05; P<.001). Moreover, when confidence was low (-1 SD) and source credibility was high (+1 SD), the efficacy ratings of attitude-consistent treatments increased (beta=.34, SE 0.13; P=.01).ConclusionsWe found correlational support for defense motivation account underlying confirmation bias in the mental health-related search context. That is, participants tended to select information that supported their prior attitudes, which is not in line with the current scientific evidence. Implications for presenting persuasive Web-based information are also discussed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03899168; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03899168 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77Nyot3Do).

Project description:IntroductionSince the advent of e-cigarettes, e-cigarette advertising has escalated and companies are able to use marketing strategies that are not permissible for tobacco products. Research into the effect of e-cigarette advertising on attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes is in its infancy. To date, no research has compared indirect (implicit) measures of attitude towards e-cigarettes with direct (explicit) measures. Furthermore, little consideration has been given to how viewing online advertisements may have an effect on attitudes towards e-cigarettes or how positive attitudes to e-cigarettes may undermine antismoking public health messages. The objectives of this study are to investigate (1) the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, (2) the effect of e-cigarette advertising on these attitudes and (3) the effect of these attitudes on the efficacy of antismoking health messages.Methods and analysisIn experiment 1 an analysis of covariance will be conducted to determine whether viewing an e-cigarette advertisement, compared with a neutral image, has an effect on implicit or explicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, and if these attitudes differ between smokers, vapers and non-smokers aged 18 - 25 years. In experiment 2, moderation analysis will be conducted to assess whether attitudes towards e-cigarettes moderate the psychological efficacy of antismoking health messages in participants aged 18-65 years. In each experiment, attitudes will be measured preintervention and postintervention and 1 week later (n=150) in participants who are smokers (n=50), vapers (n=50) or non-smokers (n=50).Ethics and disseminationApproval for this study has been given by the London South Bank University's (LSBU) Research Ethics Committee. The findings of these studies will be submitted for publication and disseminated via conferences. The results will be integrated into course provision for practitioners training at LSBU.

Dataset Information

Source Credibility and E-Cigarette Attitudes: Implications for Tobacco Communication.

Publications

Source Credibility and E-Cigarette Attitudes: Implications for Tobacco Communication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets