Dataset Information

Health Claims, Marketing Appeals, and Warnings on Popular Brands of Waterpipe Tobacco Packaging Sold in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Waterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking is associated with misperceptions of harm, especially among users. WT packaging contains imagery, flavor descriptors, and text claims that may contribute to misperceptions. The study goal was to characterize visual and text elements of WT packaging.

Aims and methods

Using data from the U.S. Population Assessment on Tobacco and Health Study Wave 2 (October 2014-October 2015), we identified the 10 most popular WT brands. For each brand, we identified available flavors, including flavor collections with unique packaging elements. We randomly selected 10 flavors per brand for purchase (March-April 2018). We conducted descriptive content analysis to code all textual and visual design elements of each package.

Results

Over half (54%) of WT packages had modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims prohibited by federal law, including substance-free MRTP claims (43%) and the descriptor "natural" (11%). No MRTP reduced exposure or reduced risk claims were found. Over a quarter (26%) of packaging including one or more of terms that may imply reduced harm including "fresh," "premium," "quality," and "pure." All packages included a text-only warning, yet none appeared on the primary display panel. Almost all packaging (99%) included imagery, with 72% including flavor imagery. The majority of packages (72%) included a smoking cue. The most popular marketing appeals were "well-made" (57%), "enjoyable" (55%), and "patriotic" (47%).

Conclusions

Prohibited MRTP claims, other descriptors, and flavor imagery are common on WT packaging, despite federal law. Future research is needed to evaluate if this marketing contributes to misperceptions of reduced harm.

Implications

Tobacco packaging is used to convey health-related messages, both explicitly and implicitly; however, information about WT packaging is virtually nonexistent. We conducted a content analysis of WT packaging from the 10 most popular US brands. Over half (54%) of packages had prohibited MRTP claims and over a quarter (26%) included one or more descriptors that may be perceived as implying reduced harm. Use of imagery, including smoking cues, was common. The widespread use of prohibited MRTP claims, other descriptors, and imagery on WT packaging may contribute to misperceptions of reduced harm.

SUBMITTER: Sutfin EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274490 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWaterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking by young adults remains high and misperceptions are common. Product warnings can increase knowledge of harms and reduce use. The goal of this study was to test warning statements, including the FDA-required nicotine warning (prior to implementation), on young adults' thinking about harms of and discouragement from WT smoking.MethodsWe conducted a between-subjects experiment in a nationally representative telephone survey of 1152 young adults aged 18-29. Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of five warning statements and reported how much, on a 4-point scale, the warning made them think about the harms and discouraged them from WT smoking.ResultsThe sample was 36.8% female, 57.8% white, 20.2% Black, 24.1% Hispanic, with a mean age of 23.2 (SE = 0.25). Under half (43.5%) had ever smoked WT. There were significant differences among the statements on both thinking about harms (p < .0001) and discouragement (p < .0001). The FDA-required "nicotine" warning led to the lowest thinking about harms (M = 2.85, SE = 0.08) and was the least discouraging (M = 2.86, SE = 0.08), while the "100 cigarettes" warning resulted in the greatest thinking about harms (M = 3.62, SE = 0.05) and was the most discouraging (M = 3.56, SE = 0.06).ConclusionsThe nicotine warning resulted in the lowest levels of thinking about harms and discouragement from WT smoking, suggesting limited impact. However, a warning focused on comparing smoke inhalation from WT smoking to cigarettes seems promising. Warnings should cover a broad range of WT health effects, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes. Findings also have implications for the content of international waterpipe warnings.ImplicationsThis study indicates that the nicotine warning is the least effective at making young adults think about the harms of and discouraging WT smoking. The FDA and other countries should consider requiring warnings to cover a broader range of health harms, misperceptions, and possibly comparisons to cigarettes.

Project description:IntroductionAn important goal in drug regulation is understanding serious safety issues with new drugs as soon as possible. Achieving this goal requires us to understand whether information provided during the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug review can predict serious safety issues that are usually identified after the product is approved. However, research on this topic remains understudied. In this paper, we examine whether any pre-marketing drug characteristics are associated with serious post-marketing safety actions.MethodsWe study this question using an internal FDA database containing every new small molecule drug submitted to the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) on or after November 21, 1997, and approved and commercially launched before December 31, 2009. Serious post-marketing safety actions include whether these drugs ever experienced either a post-marketing boxed warning or a withdrawal from the market due to safety concerns. A random effects logistic regression model was used to test whether any pre-marketing characteristics were associated with either post-marketing safety action.ResultsA total of 219 new molecular entities were analyzed. Among these drugs, 11 experienced a safety withdrawal and 30 received boxed warnings by July 31, 2016. Contrary to prevailing hypotheses, we find that neither clinical trial sample sizes nor review time windows are associated with the addition of a post-marketing boxed warning or safety withdrawal. However, we do find that new drugs approved with either a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience post-marketing boxed warnings. Furthermore, drugs approved with boxed warnings tend to receive post-marketing boxed warnings resulting from new safety information that are unrelated to the original warning. Drugs approved with a boxed warning are 3.88 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning, while drugs approved with a priority review are 3.51 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning.ConclusionAlthough drugs approved with a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience serious post-marketing safety events, other information provided during the FDA drug review that is easy to quantify is generally not associated with post-marketing safety events. It appears that these post-marketing events are not discernible during a pre-marketing review and therefore might not be avoidable using current review data.

Project description:IntroductionThis study investigated the immediate effects of brief education messages delivered online about harms and addictiveness of waterpipe tobacco use among young adult waterpipe users aged 18 to 30 years.MethodsParticipants (n = 327, mean age 24.8 years, 62.1% male, 77.6% white, 67.8% used waterpipe monthly, 26.4% weekly, 5.8% daily) were recruited online and randomized to one of three experimental conditions: (1) Control condition viewing no messages; (2) Harms condition viewing messages about harms of waterpipe tobacco; (3) Harms and addiction condition viewing messages about harms and addictiveness of waterpipe tobacco. Outcomes included perceived harm and addictiveness of waterpipe, worry about harm and addiction, and desire to quit.ResultsCompared to the control condition, participants in the harms condition reported significantly greater perceived harm and addictiveness of waterpipe relative to cigarettes, perceived risk of harm and addiction, worry about harm and addiction, and desire to quit. There were few significant differences in these outcomes between participants in the harms condition and the harms and addiction condition. Mediation analyses suggest waterpipe tobacco use harm messages may increase desire to quit by producing greater worry about harm and addiction.ConclusionsBrief education messages about waterpipe tobacco use harm increased young adult's perceptions of harm and addictiveness of waterpipe tobacco use and generated stronger desire to quit. The waterpipe tobacco use addiction messages tested had little added impact. Studies should prospectively examine the real-world impact of waterpipe tobacco use harm messages and investigate more effective strategies for designing addiction messages.ImplicationsThis study demonstrates that brief education messages about waterpipe tobacco use harm can increase young adult waterpipe tobacco user's perceptions of harm and addictiveness of waterpipe tobacco use and generate stronger desire to quit. The findings indicate messages on addictiveness of waterpipe tobacco use have no added impact on these outcomes.