Search

Introduction: Over the past few decades, tobacco control efforts have made great strides in making smoke-free air the norm; 30 states in the United States have implemented 100% smoke-free laws. Despite this progress, the evolution of the measurement of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure has lagged.Methods: Cognitive testing was used to explore the functioning and limitations of current SHS surveillance items; many items are frequently used for statewide or national surveillance. A total of 20 nonsmokers and 17 smokers participated in a cognitive interview.Results: Overreporting of SHS was evidenced in our analysis as thirdhand smoke exposure was being included in the assessment of SHS exposure, likely due to the successful implementation of indoor smoking bans. Also asking about locations of SHS exposure outside of work, home, or a personal vehicle is important because these alternative locations were sometimes the only incidence of SHS exposure.Conclusions: Survey questions about SHS should: (1) reduce the ambiguity in words and phrases of items; (2) measure location of exposure; (3) measure duration of exposure; and (4) consider alternative strategies for asking smokers questions about SHS. Assessing location and duration of exposure can inform decision-makers about future SHS programming and policy work.Implications: Commonly accepted survey measures of SHS exposure need to be reevaluated to assure that the intended interpretation of them is still accurate given significant policy and social norm change. This paper assesses current SHS surveillance items and provides recommendations for revisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Little is known on how to communicate messages on tobacco constituents to tobacco users. This study manipulated three elements of a message in the context of a theory-based communication campaign about tobacco constituents: (1) latency of response efficacy (how soon expected health benefits would accrue), (2) self-efficacy (confidence about quitting), and (3) interrogative cue ("Ready to be tobacco-free?").Methods: Smokers (N = 1669, 55.4% women) were recruited via an online platform, and were randomized to a 3 (Latency of response efficacy) × 2 (Self-efficacy) × 2 (Interrogative cue) factorial design. The dependent variables were believability, credibility, perceived effectiveness of the communication message, and action expectancies (likelihood of seeking additional information and help with quitting).Results: Latency of response efficacy influenced believability, perceived effectiveness, credibility, and action expectancies. In each case, scores were higher when specific health benefits were said to accrue within 1 month, as compared to general health benefits occurring in a few hours. The interrogative cue had a marginal positive effect on perceived effectiveness. The self-efficacy manipulation had no reliable effects, and there were no significant interactions among conditions.Conclusions: Smokers appear less persuaded by a communication message on constituents where general health benefits accrue immediately (within a few hours) than specific benefits over a longer timeframe (1 month). Additionally, smokers appeared to be more persuaded by messages with an interrogative cue. Such findings may help design more effective communication campaigns on tobacco constituents to smokers.Implications: This paper describes, for the first time, how components of tobacco constituent messages are perceived. We now know that smokers appear to be less persuaded by communication messages where general health benefits accrue immediately (within a few hours) than specific benefits over a longer timeframe (1 month). Additionally, including an interrogative cue ("Ready to be tobacco free?") may make messages more effective, whereas the self-efficacy manipulation designed to increase confidence about quitting had no effect. While messages were universally impactful across smoker subpopulations, everyday smokers and smokers with less trust in the government may be less receptive to communication campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]