Dataset Information

Cigarette pack messages about toxic chemicals: a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The USA can require tobacco companies to disclose information about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, but the impact of these messages is uncertain. We sought to assess the effect of placing messages about toxic chemicals on smokers' cigarette packs.

Methods

Participants were 719 adult cigarette smokers from California, USA, recruited from September 2016 through March 2017. We randomly assigned smokers to receive either factual messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke and their health harms (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) on the side of their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. The primary trial outcome was intention to quit smoking.

Results

In intent-to-treat analyses, smokers whose packs had chemical messages did not have higher intentions to quit smoking at the end of the trial than those whose packs had control messages (P=0.56). Compared with control messages, chemical messages led to higher awareness of the chemicals (28% vs 15%, P<0.001) and health harms (60% vs 52%, P=0.02) featured in the messages. In addition, chemical messages led to greater negative affect, thinking about the chemicals in cigarettes and the harms of smoking, conversations about the messages and forgoing a cigarette (all P<0.05).

Discussion

Chemical messages on cigarette packs did not lead to higher intentions to quit among smokers in our trial. However, chemical messages informed smokers of chemicals in cigarettes and harms of smoking, which directly supports their implementation and would be critical to defending the messages against cigarette company legal challenges.

Trial registration number

NCT02785484.

SUBMITTER: Brewer NT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6186198 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObservational evidence suggests that cigarette pack size - the number of cigarettes in a single pack - is associated with consumption but experimental evidence of a causal relationship is lacking. The tobacco industry is introducing increasingly large packs, in the absence of maximum cigarette pack size regulation. In Australia, the minimum pack size is 20 but packs of up to 50 cigarettes are available. We aimed to estimate the impact on smoking of reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes per pack.MethodA two-stage adaptive parallel group RCT in which Australian smokers who usually purchase packs containing ≥25 cigarettes were randomised to use only packs containing either 20 (intervention) or their usual packs (control) for four weeks. The primary outcome, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day, was measured through collecting all finished cigarette packs, labelled with the number of cigarettes participants smoked. An interim sample size re-estimation was used to evaluate the possibility of detecting a meaningful difference in the primary outcome.ResultsThe interim analysis, conducted when 124 participants had been randomised, suggested 1122 additional participants needed to be randomised for sufficient power to detect a meaningful effect. This exceeded pre-specified criteria for feasible recruitment, and data collection was terminated accordingly. Analysis of complete data (n = 79) indicated that the mean cigarettes smoked per day was 15.9 (SD = 8.5) in the intervention arm and 16.8 (SD = 6.7) among controls (difference - 0.9: 95%CI = - 4.3, 2.6).ConclusionIt remains unclear whether reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes reduces cigarette consumption. Importantly, the results of this study provide no evidence that capping cigarette pack sizes would be ineffective at reducing smoking. The limitations identified in this study can inform a more efficient RCT, which is urgently required to address the dearth of experimental evidence on the impact of large cigarette pack sizes on smoking.Trial registrationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN34202533.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Message avoidance (e.g., trying not to look at the message) may be motivated by reactance, a maladaptive rejection of the message. An alternative view is that avoidance indicates that a message is eliciting fear and other negative affect, thereby increasing the likelihood of behavioral change. We sought to identify which psychological mechanism-reactance or fear and other negative affect-explains message avoidance. We also examined whether avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes. METHOD:Trial 1 randomly assigned 2149 adult U.S. smokers to receive either pictorial warnings (intervention) or text-only warnings (control) on their cigarette packs for four weeks in 2014 and 2015. Trial 2 randomly assigned 719 adult U.S. smokers to receive either messages about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) for three weeks in 2016 and 2017. Negative affect included fear, anxiety, disgust, sadness, and guilt. Reactance included perceived threat to freedom, anger, and counterarguing. RESULTS:Intervention messages led to greater message avoidance in both trials (both p?<?.001). In Trial 1, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which in turn was associated with greater avoidance (mediated effect?=?0.21, p?<?.001). In contrast, reactance explained only a small part of the effect in Trial 1 (mediated effect?=?0.03, p?<?.001). Similarly, in Trial 2, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which was associated with more avoidance (mediated effect?=?0.12, p?<?.001); reactance did not explain any of the effect. In both trials, avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes (ps?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS:Smokers may avoid cigarette pack risk messages because they evoke aversive types of emotion. These studies add to a growing body of evidence that, in the context of cigarette pack messages, avoidance is not a form of defensive processing but instead a sign of deeper processing.

Project description:Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs draw attention and increase quit intentions, but their effect on smoking behavior remains uncertain.To assess the effect of adding pictorial warnings to the front and back of cigarette packs.This 4-week between-participant randomized clinical trial was carried out in California and North Carolina. We recruited a convenience sample of adult cigarette smokers from the general population beginning September 2014 through August 2015. Of 2149 smokers who enrolled, 88% completed the trial. No participants withdrew owing to adverse events.We randomly assigned participants to receive on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks either text-only warnings (one of the Surgeon General's warnings currently in use in the United States on the side of the cigarette packs) or pictorial warnings (one of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act's required text warnings and pictures that showed harms of smoking on the top half of the front and back of the cigarette packs).The primary trial outcome was attempting to quit smoking during the study. We hypothesized that smokers randomized to receive pictorial warnings would be more likely to report a quit attempt during the study than smokers randomized to receive a text-only Surgeon General's warning.Of the 2149 participants who began the trial (1039 men, 1060 women, and 34 transgender people; mean [SD] age, 39.7 [13.4] years for text-only warning, 39.8 [13.7] for pictorial warnings), 1901 completed it. In intent-to-treat analyses (n?=?2149), smokers whose packs had pictorial warnings were more likely than those whose packs had text-only warnings to attempt to quit smoking during the 4-week trial (40% vs 34%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54). The findings did not differ across any demographic groups. Having quit smoking for at least the 7 days prior to the end of the trial was more common among smokers who received pictorial than those who received text-only warnings (5.7% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29). Pictorial warnings also increased forgoing a cigarette, intentions to quit smoking, negative emotional reactions, thinking about the harms of smoking, and conversations about quitting.Pictorial warnings effectively increased intentions to quit, forgoing cigarettes, quit attempts, and successfully quitting smoking over 4 weeks. Our trial findings suggest that implementing pictorial warnings on cigarette packs in the United States would discourage smoking.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02247908.

Project description:Background:Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention for smoking cessation; however, little research has examined changes in the impact of warnings over time, especially shortly following the first exposure to pictorial warnings. We sought to characterize the trajectories of responses to pictorial cigarette pack warnings soon after first exposure. Methods:Participants were 2149 adult smokers in North Carolina and California, United States. In 2014-2015, we randomized smokers to have pictorial (intervention) or text-only (control) warnings on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. Weekly surveys assessed psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. Results:After 1 week, smokers in the intervention arm reported higher levels of most outcomes, compared with the control arm. Over subsequent weeks, smokers in both trial arms had decreases in thinking about the harms of smoking (? = -0.046), positive (? = -0.036), and negative (? = -0.042) smoking reinforcement attitudes, and increases in quit intentions (? = 0.070) and cigarette forgoing (? = 0.137) (all p < .05). Only negative affective reactions decreased more in the intervention versus control condition (pinteraction < .01). Conclusions:The impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time. In contrast, quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase, at least during the initial period after introduction. Rotation of pictorial warnings may help prevent warning wear-out. Implications:Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality and warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention. Prior studies reporting on cigarette pack warning "wear out" have been limited by being short-term single-session experimental studies. Ours are the first study to experimentally examine the trajectories of several outcomes after first exposure and report that the impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time while quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase. Trials Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02247908; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247908.

Project description:AimsMental health-related stigma is a major challenge associated with the huge mental health treatment gap. It has remained unclear what kind of educational content is effective in reducing the stigma. Whether biomedical messages (BMM) about mental illness are effective or harmful in decreasing stigma is controversial. To investigate whether BMM can improve practically useful knowledge of mental illness, comparably to recommended messages (RCM) advocated by experts, of types such as 'recovery-oriented', 'social inclusion/human rights' and 'high prevalence of mental illnesses' through a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodThis study is an individual-level RCT with a parallel-group design over 1 year, conducted in Tokyo, Japan. A total of 179 participants (males n = 80, mean age = 21.9 years and s.d. = 7.8) were recruited in high schools and universities, and through a commercial internet advertisement in June and July 2017, without any indication that the study appertained to mental health. Participants were allocated to the BMM and RCM groups. They underwent a 10-min intervention, and completed self-report questionnaires during baseline, post-test, 1-month follow-up and 1-year follow-up surveys. The primary outcome measures were practically useful knowledge of mental illness at the post-test survey using the Mental Illness and Disorder Understanding Scale (MIDUS). Analysis was conducted in October 2018.ResultsBoth groups demonstrated improved MIDUS score in the post-test survey, and showed similar intervention effects (F(1, 177) = 160.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.48). The effect of the interventions continued until the 1-year follow-up survey (B [95% CI] = -2.56 [-4.27, -0.85], p < 0.01), and showed no difference between groups. The reported adverse effect that BMM increase stigma was not confirmed.ConclusionsBMM may have a positive impact on stigma, comparable to RCM. These findings may encourage reconsideration of the content of messages about mental health, as it is indicated that combining BMM and RCM might contribute to an effective anti-stigma programme.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Literature on persuasion suggests compliance increases when requests are accompanied with a reason (i.e. the "because-heuristic"). The reliability of outcomes in physical activity research is dependent on sufficient accelerometer wear-time. This study tested whether SMS reminders-especially those that provided a rationale-are associated with increased accelerometer wear-time. METHODS:We conducted a within-trial partially randomised controlled trial during baseline data collection in a school-based physical activity intervention trial. Of 375 participants (mean age?=?18.1), 280 (75%) opted to receive daily SMS reminders to wear their accelerometers. These 280 participants were then randomised to receive either succinct reminders or reminders including a rationale. Data was analyzed across groups using both frequentist and Bayesian methods. RESULTS:No differences in total accelerometer wear minutes were detected between the succinct reminder group (Mdn?=?4909, IQR?=?3429-5857) and the rationale group (Mdn?=?4808, IQR?=?3571-5743); W?=?8860, p?=?0.65, CI95?=?-?280.90-447.20. Similarly, we found no differences in wear time between participants receiving SMS reminders (Mdn?=?4859, IQR?=?3527-5808) and those not receiving them (Mdn?=?5067, IQR?=?3201-5885); W?=?10,642.5, p?=?0.77, CI95?=?-?424.20-305.30. Bayesian ANOVA favored a model of equal weartime means, over one of unequal means, by a Bayes Factor of 12.05. Accumulated days of valid accelerometer wear data did not differ either. Equivalence testing indicated rejection of effects more extreme than a Cohen's d (standardised mean difference) of ±~0.3. CONCLUSIONS:This study casts doubt on the effectiveness of using the because-heuristic via SMS messaging, to promote accelerometer wear time among youth. The because-heuristic might be limited to face-to-face communication and situations where no intention for or commitment to the behavior has yet been made. Other explanations for null effects include non-reading of messages, and reminder messages undermining the self-reminding strategies which would occur naturally in the absence of reminders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:DRKS DRKS00007721 . Registered 14.04.2015. Retrospectively registered.