Search

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory authority to implement tobacco product standards to reduce harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs). This study examines people who use tobacco products' awareness of FDA's tobacco regulatory authority, knowledge of HPHCs, and belief in hypothetical tobacco product standard statements. We recruited adults who reported currently using tobacco (N = 1,592) from the National Panel of Tobacco Consumer Studies and randomized them to one of four conditions. Participants viewed a stimulus which consisted of a statement about a hypothetical product standard that would reduce the level of a chemical in cigarettes or smokeless tobacco (ST) and reduce cases of cancer or heart attack and stroke. A small majority of participants correctly believed that FDA regulates tobacco; however, the percentage of participants who recognized HPHCs varied widely depending upon the chemical. People who currently use ST found chemical and health statements more believable than people who did not currently use ST. Participants found it more believable that cigarettes, not ST, could be made with fewer harm-causing chemicals, and their belief in the chemical and health statements did not differ based on the health outcome specified in the hypothetical product standard statement., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

The U.S. FDA is required by law to publicly display a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) "by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand" in a format that is "understandable and not misleading to a lay person." An online experiment examined youth and adult understanding of which HPHCs are present in cigarette smoke, understanding of health effects of smoking cigarettes, and endorsement of misleading information after viewing HPHC information displayed in one of six formats. We recruited youth (N = 1324) and adults (N = 2904) from an online panel and randomized them to one of six formats of presenting HPHC information. Participants responded to survey items before and after exposure to an HPHC format. Understanding of HPHCs in cigarette smoke and understanding of health effects of cigarette smoking significantly increased pre- to post-exposure for all formats. Respondents (20.6% to 73.5%) endorsed misleading beliefs after exposure to information about HPHCs. Endorsement of the one misleading belief that was measured pre- and post-exposure significantly increased for viewers of four formats. All formats increased understanding of HPHCs in cigarette smoke and the health effects of smoking cigarettes, but some participants endorsed each misleading belief after exposure to HPHC information., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use is more common among White male youth in rural locations than among other youth. Previous literature documents risk factors for SLT use (e.g., perceived harm). However, no research has examined whether SLT initiation is associated with the use of social media and video games, despite the high prevalence of those behaviors among adolescent males., Methods: As part of the evaluation of "The Real Cost" smokeless prevention campaign, we conducted a baseline survey of a cohort of US males aged 11-16 in 2016 and four follow-up surveys conducted approximately every 8 months. We used discrete-time survival analysis to examine factors associated with SLT initiation. Logistic regression estimated the odds of initiation as a function of lagged values of key predictors (social media use in tertiles and frequency of gaming) and other baseline and lagged correlates. The model controlled for campaign exposure., Results: Relative to the lowest tertile of social media use, moderate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.80) or high use (OR = 2.77) was associated with increased risk of SLT initiation at the subsequent survey wave. Relative to playing every few weeks or less, playing video games once a day (OR = 0.50) or several times a day (OR = 0.33) was associated with decreased risk of SLT initiation., Discussion: SLT initiation was positively associated with social media use and negatively associated with gaming. Future research should explore reasons for the protective nature of gaming (e.g., social support, improved mood) and whether parental supervision of social media use could mitigate its negative impact., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Scientists identified vitamin E acetate (VEA) and "Dank Vapes" (a fake brand of tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] vaping products) as contributors to the 2019-2020 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). On social media, people who post about vaping or THC discussed the causes of EVALI. We examined whether Reddit conversations may have served as early signals of the outbreak., Methods: We collected Reddit posts from March 2018 to February 2020 on vaping- and THC-related subreddits that mentioned VEA or Dank Vapes. We identified peaks in post volume, examined post content, and used natural language processing to identify terms most characteristic of posts., Results: There were almost no posts about VEA before EVALI. Subsequently, there were two peaks, both referencing media coverage of scientific findings that linked VEA to EVALI. Discussion regularly referenced concerns about the legitimacy of Dank Vapes before EVALI; peaks in posts were largely unrelated to scientific findings or media coverage of those findings. The terms most characteristic of VEA posts were EVALI-related; those most characteristic of Dank Vapes posts were about quality or legitimacy., Conclusions: Although posts about VEA and Dank Vapes did not predict the outbreak, the public health community could use social media to encourage people who vape or use THC to report future health concerns (e.g., through FDA's Safety Reporting Portal). Researchers and regulators could also use social media to see if potentially problematic products, such as Dank Vapes, have a history of concern among individuals who use those products., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Although rates of cigarette smoking among U.S. adolescents have declined, rates of vaping (i.e., using e-cigarettes) have increased. We conducted a secondary analysis of 359 transcripts of medical visits of adolescents with asthma to examine communication about caregiver and adolescent smoking and vaping., Method: Adolescents aged 11-17 years with persistent asthma and their parents were enrolled from four pediatric clinics in 2015-2017. Youth were randomized to the intervention or usual care groups. Intervention group adolescents watched a video and then completed an asthma question prompt list before their visits., Results: Forty providers and 359 patients participated. Providers, adolescents, and caregivers discussed smoking during 38.2% of their visits. Vaping was never discussed., Discussion: There is room to improve how often providers in a primary care setting discuss smoking and vaping. Further investigation might focus on how a smoking and vaping prompt list for adolescents could increase tobacco discussions during visits., (Copyright © 2021 National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cannabis warning labels can communicate risks, but there is little research on warning perceptions and differences by product type., Methods: In a 2019 online survey, 1,000 U.S. adults (500 cannabis users and 500 cannabis non-users who used tobacco) were randomly assigned to view no warning or one of four U.S. or Canadian warnings displayed on images of packaging for dried flower or edible cannabis. The warnings described cannabis risks related to psychosis, addiction, lack of FDA oversight, and impaired driving. We used linear regression to examine perceptions of warnings and product harm as a function of product type (dried or edible) and warning. We examined which warning participants selected as most effective for discouraging youth use and impaired driving., Results: Participants found the addiction warning (cannabis users: B = -1.04, p < 0.001; cannabis non-users: B = 1.17, p < 0.001) and psychosis warning (users: B = -0.65, p < 0.05; non-users: B = -0.71, p < 0.05) less believable than the driving warning but indicated that they learned more from the psychosis warning than the driving warning (users: B = 0.88, p < 0.01; non-users (B = 1.60, p < 0.001). Participants viewing any warning considered smoking cannabis to be more harmful than those viewing no warning (all p < 0.05). The psychosis warning was most frequently selected as the best warning for discouraging youth use., Conclusions: Warnings have the potential to educate consumers and impact cannabis harm perceptions. Warnings have similar effects across product types, potentially eliminating the need for product type-specific warnings. The association of cannabis use with risk for psychosis, a topic addressed in Canadian warnings, could be a useful topic of focus in U.S. warnings., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pursuant to the Tobacco Control Act (TCA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing new cigarette health warnings to convey the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking., Aims and Methods: This study assessed which of 15 revised warning statements (10 on topics similar to TCA statements and 5 on other topics) promoted greater understanding of cigarette smoking risks relative to TCA statements. In February 2018, adolescent and adult smokers and adolescents susceptible to smoking (n = 2505) completed an online experiment. Control condition participants viewed TCA statements; treatment condition participants viewed combinations of TCA and revised statements. Analyses compared revised statements to TCA statements on the same health topic or to randomly selected TCA statements if there were no statements on the same topic., Results: Relative to TCA statements, 12 of 15 revised statements were more likely to be considered new information, and 12 resulted in more self-reported learning. Three revised statements made participants think more about health risks than TCA statements; the reverse was true for one revised statement. Participants rated most TCA and revised statements as moderately believable and informative. Seven revised statements were found to be less believable and factual, and one revised statement more believable and factual. Treatment condition participants correctly selected more smoking-related health conditions than control condition participants (13.79 versus 12.42 of 25)., Conclusions: Findings suggest that revised statements can promote greater understanding of cigarette smoking risks. Results informed FDA's selection of warning text that was paired with images for testing in a follow-up study., Implications: The US FDA may adjust the text of the cigarette warning statements provided in the TCA if the revised statements promote greater public understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. Most of the revised warning statements tested were more likely to be considered new information and resulted in more self-reported learning compared with paired TCA statements, providing support for using revised statements as part of cigarette health warnings. These results informed the development of pictorial cigarette warnings by FDA that were tested in a follow-up study and included in a proposed rule., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2020.)

Introduction: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires cigarette packages and advertisements to bear health warnings with "color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.", Aims and Methods: This study assessed whether new US Food and Drug Administration developed pictorial cigarette warnings (PCW) increased understanding of smoking-related risks relative to the current Surgeon General's (SG) warnings. In March-May 2019, adolescent and adult smokers and nonsmokers participated in an online experiment with three sessions completed over approximately 2 weeks. Participants viewed 1 of 16 PCW (treatment conditions) or an SG warning (control) on mock cigarette packages and advertisements. Measures assessed whether warnings provided new information, induced thinking about risks, changed smoking-related health beliefs, and were accurately recalled, among other outcomes., Results: The majority of PCW (≥13 conditions) resulted in greater learning of new information, higher self-reported learning, and greater reports of thinking about smoking risks; they were viewed as more informative, understandable, and attention-drawing compared with the control condition. Most participants believed the warning were factual, although 8 PCW were perceived as less factual than the control. There were changes toward more agreement with health beliefs for 11 PCW between Sessions 1 and 2 and 7 PCW between Sessions 1 and 3. Participants in all treatment conditions were more likely than control condition participants to correctly recall the warning. Across outcomes, PCW related to addiction, death, and quitting did not perform as well as other PCW., Conclusions: Many of the PCW tested increased understanding of the risks associated with cigarette smoking relative to current SG warnings., Implications: The Tobacco Control Act requires cigarette packages and advertisements to bear PCW depicting the negative health consequences of smoking. This study tested whether any of 16 newly proposed PCW increased understanding of smoking-related risks relative to existing SG warnings. Results suggest that most PCW tested, particularly those related to less widely known health effects, resulted in greater learning of new information, higher self-reported learning, and greater reports of thinking about smoking risks compared with SG warnings. These results, along with other factors, informed the US Food and Drug Administration's selection of proposed PCW., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2020.)

Endorsing prototypes of cigarette smokers predicts cigarette smoking, but less is known about prototypes of users of other tobacco products. Our study sought to establish the reliability and validity of a measure of prototypes of smokers and e-cigarette users. Participants were from a national survey of smokers and non-smokers ( n = 1414), a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of adult smokers ( n = 2149), and adolescent children of adults in the trial ( n = 112). The Prototypes of Tobacco Users Scale (POTUS) has four positive adjectives (cool, sexy, smart, and healthy) and four negative adjectives (disgusting, unattractive, immature, and inconsiderate) describing cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users. Confirmatory factor analyses identified a two-factor solution. The POTUS demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability in all three samples (median α = 0.85) and good test-retest reliability among adults in the RCT (median r = 0.61, 1-4 weeks follow-up). In the RCT, smokers more often agreed with negative prototypes for smokers than for e-cigarette users (mean = 2.03 vs. 1.67, p < 0.05); negative prototypes at baseline were also associated with more forgoing of cigarettes and making a quit attempt at the end of the trial (Week 4 follow-up). The POTUS may be useful to public health researchers seeking to design interventions that reduce tobacco initiation or cessation through the manipulation of tobacco user prototypes.

Background: Delivery of nicotine and substances from electronic nicotine delivery systems, or e-cigarettes, depends in part on how users puff on the devices. Little is known about variation in puffing behavior to inform testing protocols or understand whether puffing behaviors result in increased exposure to emissions., Methods: We analyzed puff topography data collected using a wireless portable use monitor (wPUM) continuously over 2 weeks among 34 current second-generation e-cigarette users in their everyday lives. For each puff, the wPUM recorded date, time, duration, volume, flow rate, and inter-puff interval., Results: We defined use session and classes at the session level using multilevel latent profile analysis, resulting in two session classes and three person types. Session class 1 ("light") was characterized by 14.7 puffs per session (PPS), low puff volume (59.9 ml), flow rate (28.7 ml/s), and puff duration (202.7 s × 100). Session class 2 ("heavy") was characterized by 16.7 PPS with a high puff volume (290.9 ml), flow rate (71.5 ml/s), and puff duration (441.1 s × 100). Person class 1 had almost exclusively "light" sessions (98.0%), whereas person class 2 had a majority of "heavy" sessions (60.7%) and person class 3 had a majority of "light" sessions (75.3%) but some "heavy" sessions (24.7%)., Conclusion: Results suggest there are different session topography patterns among e-cigarette users. Further assessment is needed to determine whether some users have increased exposure to constituents and/or health risks because of e-cigarettes., Implications: Our study examines topography characteristics in a users' natural setting to identify two classes of e-cigarette session behavior and three classes of users. These results suggest that it is important for studies on the health effects of e-cigarettes to take variation in user topography into account. It is crucial to accurately understand the topography profiles of session and user types to determine whether some users are at greater exposure to harmful or potentially harmful constituents and risks from e-cigarettes as they are used by consumers., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The number of adolescents and adults using e-cigarettes, referred to as vaping, has dramatically increased. E-cigarettes can be used to perform vape tricks by inhaling and exhaling the e-cigarette aerosol in patterns to create visual effects or large clouds. To create these effects, the puffing patterns associated with vape tricks may be different than standard ad-lib e-cigarette usage. The prevalence of vape tricks and the harm associated with exposure to e-cigarette emissions when performing vape tricks is currently unknown., Objective: Our objectives are to characterize duration, heart rate, respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, and physical activity metrics associated with the performance of vape tricks and to characterize the emission of e-cigarettes when performing vape tricks in a manner suitable to inform novel exposure modeling., Methods: The study will recruit e-cigarette users with a history of performing vape tricks. Data collection will occur in two different sessions. In the first session, participants will be asked to puff on their e-cigarette as they normally would for 20 minutes. The second session will be a vape tricks session, where users will be asked to perform a series of up to five different vape tricks with their e-cigarette. Data will be collected through screener surveys, in-person interviews, video recordings, a personal exposure monitor, and a biometric garment., Results: Data analysis is pending and scheduled to take place in the fall of 2019., Conclusions: This study will be used to assess the feasibility of using a biometric garment to complement environmental and observational data. The approach may provide greater insight into the health risks of performing vape tricks compared to typical e-cigarette use., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/12304., (©Robert Furberg, Alexa M Ortiz, Michelle McCombs, Margaret Cress, Jonathan Thornburg, Jessica K Pepper, Youn Ok Lee. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 15.04.2019.)

Background: The science surrounding e-cigarettes and other electronic vaping products (EVPs) is rapidly evolving, and the health effects of vaping are unclear. Little research has explored how individuals respond to information acknowledging scientific uncertainty. The aim of the present study was to understand the impact of messages about scientific uncertainty regarding the health effects of vaping on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions., Methods: Adults in an online experiment (n = 2508) were randomly exposed to view either a control message (a short factual statement about EVPs) or an uncertainty message (the control message plus additional information describing why EVP-related research is limited or inconclusive). Participants rated the risks of vaping and their intentions to try or stop vaping., Results: Individuals who viewed the uncertainty message rated vaping as less risky than those who viewed the control message. Message exposure did not impact intentions to try vaping soon or intentions to stop vaping in the next 6 months., Conclusions: Acknowledging scientific uncertainty made EVP use seem less risky. Future research should explore possible drivers of this response, such as deeper message processing or emotional reactions. Researchers and practitioners designing public health campaigns about vaping might consider a cautious approach to presenting information about scientific uncertainty., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the government to disseminate information about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. We sought to understand how the descriptors "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" affect smokers' interest in cigarettes in the context of information about chemicals in cigarette smoke., Methods: Participants were a national probability sample of 1,101 US adult (ages ≥18) smokers recruited in 2014-2015. A between-subjects experiment randomized participants in a telephone survey to 1 of 4 cigarette descriptors: "organic," "natural," "additive-free," or "ultra-light" (control). The outcome was expected interest in cigarettes with the experimentally assigned descriptor, after learning that 2 chemicals (hydrogen cyanide and lead) are in cigarette smoke. Experimental data analysis was conducted in 2016-2017., Results: Smokers indicated greater expected interest in "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarettes than "ultra-light" cigarettes (all p <.001) after learning that hydrogen cyanide and lead were in cigarette smoke. Smokers who intended to quit in the next 6 months expressed greater expected interest in the 4 types of cigarettes ("organic," "natural," "additive-free," and "ultra-light") compared to smokers not intending to quit (p <.001)., Conclusions: Smokers, especially those intending to quit, may be more inclined towards cigarettes described as "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" in the context of chemical information. An accumulating body of evidence shows that the US should fully restrict use of "organic" and "natural" descriptors for tobacco products as it has done for "additive-free" and "light" descriptors., Competing Interests: Dr. Brewer has served as a paid expert consultant in litigation against tobacco companies. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: More adolescents "vape" (use e-cigarettes and similar devices) than smoke, but little is known about how underage users obtain vaping devices. This knowledge could inform efforts to prevent youth access., Design: Original cross-sectional survey with social media recruitment., Settings: Online., Participants: A total of 1729 adolescents (2809 qualified on screener; completion rate 61.6%) aged 15 to 17 years who vaped in the past 30 days., Measures: Adolescents' vaping attitudes, ownership of vaping devices, how they obtain devices, and frequency of borrowing others' devices., Analysis: Logistic regression., Results: Most adolescents (78.2%) owned a vaping device. The most common sources were purchasing from a store or online (31.1%), buying from another person (16.3%), or giving someone money to purchase for them (15.0%). The majority (72.8%) had used someone else's vaping device in the past 30 days. Adolescents who vaped more often, did not own a vaping device, vaped in social situations, and had previously been refused purchase were more likely to frequently borrow others' devices., Conclusions: Despite high rates of ownership, many adolescents borrowed devices, suggesting that borrowing is part of users' social experience, not just a means of acquisition. Although better enforcement of age restrictions could lessen purchasing, future research is needed to understand why adolescents borrow and how their acquisition sources shift over time. That information could be harnessed for targeted, borrowing-related antivaping campaigns.

Introduction: Advanced vaping devices likely pose a greater risk to adolescent health than basic or intermediate devices because advanced devices deliver nicotine more effectively and heat e-liquid to higher temperatures, producing more harmful chemical emissions. However, little is known about adolescents' risk factors for using different device types., Methods: We used social media to recruit an online sample of 1508 US adolescents aged 15-17 who reported past 30-day use of electronic vaping products (EVPs) in September 2016. We assessed tobacco use, beliefs, and knowledge about EVPs and EVP use behavior, including the device type participants use most frequently. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine differences between adolescents who usually use intermediate versus basic and advanced versus basic devices., Results: Most respondents usually used modifiable advanced devices (56.8%) rather than basic "cigalike" (14.5%) or pen-style intermediate (28.7%) devices. Use of multiple device types was common, particularly among those who primarily used basic devices. Younger age and less frequent vaping were associated with mainly using basic devices. Adolescents who were older, male, personally bought their main device, and had ever mixed e-liquids were at elevated risk for usually using advanced devices., Conclusions: Adolescents who primarily use basic devices may be newer users who are experimenting with multiple devices. Future research should examine which adolescents are most likely to transition to advanced devices in order to develop targeted interventions. Regulators should consider strategies to reduce access to all types of EVPs, such as better enforcement of the current ban on sales to minors., Implications: This research addresses two gaps in research on adolescent electronic vaping product use: (1) characterizing use of advanced devices as distinct from intermediate devices rather than grouping them together and (2) examining factors associated with use of specific device types. This study suggests that there are distinct profiles of adolescents who use primarily basic, intermediate, or advanced devices. Adolescents who most often use basic devices may be new users experimenting with vaping, whereas adolescents who most often use advanced devices appear to be buying devices for themselves and engaging in risky behaviors such as mixing their own e-liquid.

Introduction: While evidence suggests positive opinions of smokers are associated with tobacco use, research exploring adolescents' opinions of e-cigarette users is nascent. We hypothesized that adolescents harbor positive opinions of e-cigarette users, and that these opinions will be more positive among adolescents willing to try or who have used e-cigarettes., Methods: Participants were 578 U.S. adolescents (ages 14 to 20) recruited from ten California schools. An online survey assessed their attitudes toward and opinions of adolescents who use e-cigarettes in 2015-2016. Analyses examined whether these variables were associated with willingness to try and use (ever vs. never) of e-cigarettes., Results: The majority (61%) of participants had negative overall opinions toward adolescent e-cigarette users. Few participants ascribed positive traits (i.e., sexy, cool, clean, smart, and healthy) to e-cigarette users. Participants who were willing to try or had used e-cigarettes endorsed positive traits more than those unwilling to try and never-users (all p < .01). Participants sometimes endorsed negative traits (i.e., unattractive, trashy, immature, disgusting, and inconsiderate) to describe e-cigarette users. Unwilling and never-users viewed negative traits as more descriptive of e-cigarette users than willing or ever-users (all p < .01)., Conclusions: Adolescents generally had somewhat negative opinions of other adolescents who use e-cigarettes. Building on adolescents' negativity toward adolescent e-cigarette users may be a productive direction for prevention efforts, and clinicians can play an important role by keeping apprised of the products their adolescent patients are using and providing information on health effects to support negative opinions or dissuade formation of more positive ones., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings discourage smoking, but most evidence comes from studies of adults. Our qualitative study explored adolescents' reactions to pictorial warnings on their parents' cigarette packs., Methods: We interviewed 24 adolescents whose parents received pictorial warnings on their cigarette packs as part of a randomized clinical trial. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts., Results: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings led adolescents to imagine the depicted health effects happening to their parents, which elicited negative emotions. The warnings inspired adolescents to initiate conversations with their parents and others about quitting smoking. Adolescents believed the warnings would help smokers quit and prevent youth from starting smoking. Some current smokers said the warnings made them consider quitting., Conclusions: Conversations about the pictorial warnings may amplify their effectiveness for smokers, their adolescent children, and friends of the adolescent children. Cigarette pack warnings may reach a broad audience that includes adolescent children of smokers.

Introduction: Nicotine harms adolescent brain development and contributes to addiction. Some adolescents report using nicotine-free e-cigarettes, but the accuracy of their reporting is unclear. We explored adolescents' use of nicotine-free e-cigarettes and understanding of chemicals in e-cigarettes, including nicotine., Methods: Using social media, we recruited 1589 US adolescents (aged 15-17) who reported past 30-day use of e-cigarettes in 2016. We assessed perceptions of the nicotine source in e-liquid and whether e-cigarette aerosol is just "water vapor." We explored differences among adolescents who usually used e-cigarettes with nicotine (n = 473) and without nicotine (n = 452). We used weights to calibrate our sample to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey., Results: Twenty-nine percent usually used e-cigarettes without nicotine, 28% with nicotine, 39% with "both," and 5% were "not sure." Few participants (17% of non-nicotine users vs. 34% of nicotine users, p < .001) understood the nicotine was derived from tobacco. Youth who thought e-cigarette aerosol was just water vapor were more likely to usually use without nicotine. Older adolescents and current tobacco users were less likely to usually use without nicotine., Conclusions: The adolescents who reported usually using e-cigarettes without nicotine had poorer knowledge of e-cigarettes. This lack of understanding could contribute to inaccurate reporting of nicotine use. Most youth thought the nicotine in e-cigarettes was artificial, potentially indicating a belief that this nicotine is "safer." The US Food & Drug Administration will require nicotine warnings on e-cigarettes in 2018; a complementary educational campaign could address youths' misperceptions about nicotine and other chemicals in e-cigarette aerosol., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

E-cigarettes and other non-cigarette tobacco products are increasingly popular among youth. Little is known to inform public health efforts to reduce youth use. We examined psychosocial correlates of single and multiple tobacco product use among youth e-cigarette users. Data were from the 2014 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey ( N = 69,923), a representative sample of Florida middle and high school students. Associations between combinations of e-cigarette, cigarette and other tobacco product (OTP) use and psychosocial variables were examined using multinomial logistic regression with an analytic sample of N = 2756. Most e-cigarette-using youth used at least one other product (81%). Perceiving cigarettes as easy to quit was significantly associated with greater likelihood of combined e-cigarette/OTP use (relative risk ratio (RRR) = 2.51, p < 0.001) and combined e-cigarette/cigarette/OTP use (RRR = 3.20, p < 0.0001). Thinking you will be smoking cigarettes in 5 years was associated with product combinations that include cigarettes. Tobacco company marketing receptivity was associated with multiple product user types. Given that specific psychosocial factors put youth at risk for concurrent use of e-cigarettes with tobacco products, public health efforts should address polytobacco use specifically, instead of individual product use. Youth perceptions about the ease of quitting cigarettes, intentions to continue smoking cigarettes and receptivity to tobacco company marketing are promising areas for messaging aimed at reducing e-cigarette polytobacco product use., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Measuring perceptions associated with e-cigarette use can provide valuable information to help explain why youth and adults initiate and continue to use e-cigarettes. However, given the complexity of e-cigarette devices and their continuing evolution, measures of perceptions of this product have varied greatly. Our goal, as members of the working group on e-cigarette measurement within the Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) network, is to provide guidance to researchers developing surveys concerning e-cigarette perceptions. We surveyed the 14 TCORS sites and received and reviewed 371 e-cigarette perception items from seven sites. We categorized the items based on types of perceptions asked, and identified measurement approaches that could enhance data validity and approaches that researchers may consider avoiding. The committee provides suggestions in four areas: (1) perceptions of benefits, (2) harm perceptions, (3) addiction perceptions, and (4) perceptions of social norms. Across these 4 areas, the most appropriate way to assess e-cigarette perceptions depends largely on study aims. The type and number of items used to examine e-cigarette perceptions will also vary depending on respondents' e-cigarette experience (i.e., user vs. non-user), level of experience (e.g., experimental vs. established), type of e-cigarette device (e.g., cig-a-like, mod), and age. Continuous formative work is critical to adequately capture perceptions in response to the rapidly changing e-cigarette landscape. Most important, it is imperative to consider the unique perceptual aspects of e-cigarettes, building on the conventional cigarette literature as appropriate, but not relying on existing conventional cigarette perception items without adjustment., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Some adolescent users of e-cigarettes and other electronic vaping products (EVPs) report performing "vape tricks" (exhaling aerosol to make shapes). However, little is known about this behavior. We examined the frequency of performing and watching vape tricks and the characteristics of those most likely to perform vape tricks among a sample of adolescent EVP users., Methods: We used social media ads to recruit a national convenience sample of U.S. adolescents (n = 1,729) to participate in an online survey in September 2016. Inclusion criteria required participants to be aged 15-17 years and to have used EVPs at least once in the past 30 days., Results: The majority of EVP-using adolescents reported trying (77.8%) and watching vape tricks in person (83.7%) or online (74.0%). Risk factors for performing tricks included using advanced vaping devices, vaping every day, white race, moderate levels of seeing and sharing vaping information on social media, and believing that EVP use is more normative among peers. Likelihood of trying vape tricks decreased as beliefs about the harmfulness of EVPs increased., Conclusions: Vape tricks pose a potential threat to adolescent health if they encourage nonusers to initiate or current EVP users to use more frequently or switch to advanced devices that produce more harmful chemical emissions. Further research should examine the possible health effects of performing vape tricks, and future public health campaigns should be informed by an understanding of the appeal of this activity for adolescents., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Exposure to e-cigarette adverts increases children's positive attitudes towards using them. Given the similarity in appearance between e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes, we examined whether exposure to e-cigarette adverts has a cross-product impact on perceptions and attitudes towards smoking tobacco cigarettes., Methods: Children aged 11-16 (n=564) were interviewed in their homes and randomised to one of three groups: two groups saw different sets of 10 images of e-cigarette adverts and one group saw no adverts. Of the 20 e-cigarette adverts, 10 depicted the product as glamorous and 10 depicted it as healthy. The children then self-completed a questionnaire assessing perceived appeal, harms and benefits of smoking tobacco cigarettes., Results: The analyses were conducted on 411 children who reported never having smoked tobacco cigarettes or used e-cigarettes. Exposure to the adverts had no impact on the appeal or perceived benefits of smoking tobacco cigarettes. While the perceived harm of smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day was similar across groups, those exposed to either set of adverts perceived the harms of smoking one or two tobacco cigarettes occasionally to be lower than those in the control group., Conclusions: This study provides the first evidence that exposure to e-cigarette adverts might influence children's perceptions of smoking tobacco cigarettes, reducing their perceived harm of occasional smoking. These results suggest the potential for e-cigarette adverts to undermine tobacco control efforts by reducing a potential barrier (ie, beliefs about harm) to occasional smoking., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Rationale: Tobacco companies use advertising to target vulnerable populations, including youth, racial/ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities., Objective: We sought to examine how personal identity affects support for population-specific anti-smoking advertisements that could serve as countermeasures to industry marketing practices., Methods: In 2014-2015, we surveyed probability phone samples of adults and adolescents (n = 6,139) and an online convenience sample of adults (n = 4,137) in the United States. We experimentally varied the description of tobacco industry marketing practices (no description, general, or specific to a target group). The four prevention target groups were teens; African Americans; Latinos; and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (GLBs). Participants were either members or non-members of their prevention target group., Results: Support was highest for anti-smoking advertisements targeting teens, moderate for Latinos and African Americans, and lowest for GLBs. In-group members expressed higher support than out-group members when anti-smoking advertisements targeted African Americans, Latinos, and GLBs (all p < 0.05). However, when teens were the target prevention group, in-group members expressed lower support than out-group members (p < 0.05). The description of industry marketing practices did not have an effect. Results were similar across the phone and online studies., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the public strongly supports advertisements to prevent smoking among teens, but support for similar efforts among other vulnerable populations is comparatively low. Anti-smoking campaigns for vulnerable populations may benefit from a greater understanding of the role of social identity in shaping public support for such campaigns., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Substantial harm could result from concurrent cigarette and e-cigarette use (i.e., dual use) were it to undermine smoking cessation. Perceptions of chemical exposure and resulting harms may influence dual use. We conducted a probability-based phone survey of 1164 U.S. adult cigarette smokers in 2014-2015 and analyzed results in 2016. In a between-subjects experiment, smokers heard a hypothetical scenario in which cigarettes and e-cigarettes had the same amount of harmful chemicals or cigarettes had more chemicals than e-cigarettes (10× more, 100× more, or chemicals were present only in cigarettes). Smokers indicated how the scenario would change their interest in dual use and perceived health harms. Few smokers (7%) who heard that the products have the same amount of chemicals were interested in initiating or increasing dual use. However, more smokers were interested when told that cigarettes have 10× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (31%), 100× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (32%), or chemicals were present only in cigarettes (43%) (all p<.001). Individuals told that cigarettes have more chemicals were more likely than those in the "same amount" scenario to perceive that cigarettes would be more harmful than e-cigarettes (79% vs. 41%, OR=5.41, 95% CI=4.08-7.17). These harm perceptions partially explained the relationship between chemical scenario and dual use interest. Smokers associated higher chemical amounts in cigarettes versus e-cigarettes with greater health harms from cigarettes and thus expressed increased interest in dual use. The findings suggest that disclosing amounts of chemicals in cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol could unintentionally encourage dual use., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) The Real Cost campaign advertisements (ads) have targeted U.S. youth with messages designed to prevent and reduce tobacco use. This study examined exposure to The Real Cost campaign, including ad and slogan recall, and associations with attitudes and risk perceptions among U.S. adolescents. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years ( n = 1125) surveyed by phone from October 2014 to June 2015. We assessed aided recall of and attitudes toward four campaign ads and the one slogan. Logistic regression models assessed whether aided recall of The Real Cost ads or slogan was associated with perceived likelihood of serious health consequences of cigarette smoking. Most (88%) adolescents reported seeing or hearing at least one of four ads for The Real Cost , and 54% recalled The Real Cost slogan. The majority of adolescents reported more negative attitudes toward tobacco products after seeing or hearing the ads. Recall of any The Real Cost ad was significantly associated with greater perceptions of serious health consequences of cigarette smoking (Adjusted Odd Ratios (AOR) = 5.58, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.20-25.90). The FDA's The Real Cost campaign has achieved very high reach and is associated with more negative attitudes toward tobacco products and greater risk perceptions of cigarette smoking among U.S. adolescents., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Purpose: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings are a promising policy solution to increase smoking cessation among adults. However, little is known regarding adolescents' responses to pictorial warnings, particularly in real-world settings., Methods: Participants were 112 adolescent children, ages 13-17, whose parents received either text-only warnings on the side of their cigarette packs or pictorial warnings on the top half of the front and back of their cigarette packs for 4 weeks as part of a trial. We measured adolescents' recall and recognition of these warnings, negative emotional reactions to the warnings, perceived effectiveness of the warnings, social interactions about the warnings, and smoking risk beliefs., Results: Adolescents accurately recalled pictorial warnings more often than text-only warnings (82% vs. 19%, p < .001). Recognition of warnings was also higher for pictorial than text-only warnings (82% vs. 34%, p < .001). Pictorial warnings drew greater attention (p < .001), elicited greater negative emotional reactions (p < .05), and sparked more social interactions (p < .01) than text-only warnings., Conclusions: Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs may have important effects on adolescent children of smokers. Future research should further investigate the impact of such messages on adolescents' susceptibility to smoking initiation and interest in quitting smoking, particularly as the United States and other countries work to implement pictorial warning regulations., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: More US adolescents use e-cigarettes than smoke cigarettes. Research suggests flavoured e-cigarettes appeal to youth, but little is known about perceptions of and reasons for attraction to specific flavours., Methods: A national sample of adolescents (n=1125) ages 13-17 participated in a phone survey from November 2014 to June 2015. We randomly assigned adolescents to respond to survey items about 1 of 5 e-cigarette flavours (tobacco, alcohol, menthol, candy or fruit) and used regression analysis to examine the impact of flavour on interest in trying e-cigarettes and harm beliefs., Results: Adolescents were more likely to report interest in trying an e-cigarette offered by a friend if it were flavoured like menthol (OR=4.00, 95% CI 1.46 to 10.97), candy (OR=4.53, 95% CI 1.67 to 12.31) or fruit (OR=6.49, 95% CI 2.48 to 17.01) compared with tobacco. Adolescents believed that fruit-flavoured e-cigarettes were less harmful to health than tobacco-flavoured e-cigarettes (p<0.05). Perceived harm mediated the relationship between some flavours and interest in trying e-cigarettes. A minority of adolescents believed that e-cigarettes did not have nicotine (14.6%) or did not know whether they had nicotine (3.6%); these beliefs did not vary by flavour., Discussion: Candy-flavoured, fruit-flavoured and menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes appeal to adolescents more than tobacco-flavoured or alcohol-flavoured e-cigarettes. This appeal is only partially explained by beliefs about reduced harm. Given adolescents' interest in trying e-cigarettes with certain flavours, policymakers should consider restricting advertisements promoting flavoured products in media that reach large numbers of young people. Future research should examine other reasons for the appeal of individual flavours, such as novelty and perceived luxury., Competing Interests: None., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KMR has served as an expert consultant in litigation against cigarette manufacturers and internet tobacco vendors., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

The novelty of e-cigarettes and ambiguity about their effects may foster informal sharing of information, such as through social interactions. We aimed to describe smokers' social interactions about e-cigarettes and their recommendations that others use e-cigarettes. Data were collected from 2149 adult smokers in North Carolina and California who participated in a study of the impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings. In the previous month, almost half of participants (45%) reported talking to at least one person about e-cigarettes and nearly a third of participants (27%) recommended e-cigarettes to someone else. Smokers recommended e-cigarettes to cut back on smoking (57%), to quit smoking (48%), for health reasons (36%), and for fun (27%). In adjusted analyses, more frequent e-cigarette use, positive views about typical e-cigarette users, and attempting to quit smoking in the past month were associated with recommending e-cigarettes for health reasons (all p < 0.05). Social interactions appear to be a popular method of information-sharing about e-cigarettes among smokers. Health communication campaigns may help to fill in the gaps of smokers' understanding of e-cigarettes and their long-term effects.

Objective: To inform international research and policy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature on pictorial cigarette pack warnings., Data Sources: We systematically searched 7 computerised databases in April 2013 using several search terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles., Study Selection: We included studies that used an experimental protocol to test cigarette pack warnings and reported data on both pictorial and text-only conditions. 37 studies with data on 48 independent samples (N=33,613) met criteria., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent coders coded all study characteristics. Effect sizes were computed from data extracted from study reports and were combined using random effects meta-analytic procedures., Results: Pictorial warnings were more effective than text-only warnings for 12 of 17 effectiveness outcomes (all p<0.05). Relative to text-only warnings, pictorial warnings (1) attracted and held attention better; (2) garnered stronger cognitive and emotional reactions; (3) elicited more negative pack attitudes and negative smoking attitudes and (4) more effectively increased intentions to not start smoking and to quit smoking. Participants also perceived pictorial warnings as being more effective than text-only warnings across all 8 perceived effectiveness outcomes., Conclusions: The evidence from this international body of literature supports pictorial cigarette pack warnings as more effective than text-only warnings. Gaps in the literature include a lack of assessment of smoking behaviour and a dearth of theory-based research on how warnings exert their effects., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: Perceived credibility of a message's source can affect persuasion. This paper reviews how beliefs about the source of tobacco control messages may encourage attitude and behavior change., Methods: We conducted a series of searches of the peer-reviewed literature using terms from communication and public health fields. We reviewed research on source credibility, its underlying concepts, and its relation to the persuasiveness of tobacco control messages., Results: We recommend an agenda for future research to bridge the gaps between communication literature on source credibility and tobacco control research. Our recommendations are to study the impact of source credibility on persuasion with long-term behavior change outcomes, in different populations and demographic groups, by developing new credibility measures that are topic- and organization-specific, by measuring how credibility operates across media platforms, and by identifying factors that enhance credibility and persuasion., Conclusions: This manuscript reviews the state of research on source credibility and identifies gaps that are maximally relevant to tobacco control communication. Knowing first whether a source is perceived as credible, and second, how to enhance perceived credibility, can inform the development of future tobacco control campaigns and regulatory communications.

Purpose: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use now surpasses the use of conventional cigarettes among U.S. adolescents. Given the important role of physicians in preventing adolescent risk behaviors, we sought to understand how physicians communicate about e-cigarettes when counseling adolescent patients and their parents. We also explored physicians' support for regulations aimed at discouraging adolescents' e-cigarette use., Methods: A national U.S. sample of 776 pediatricians and family medicine physicians who provide primary care to adolescent patients completed an online survey in Spring 2014., Results: Many physicians (41%) would, if asked, tell their patients that e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes, and a substantial minority (24%) would recommend e-cigarettes to adolescents for smoking cessation. Most physicians reported routinely screening adolescent patients for cigarette smoking but few routinely screened for e-cigarette use (86% vs. 14%; p < .001). Routine counseling was similarly more common for avoiding cigarette smoking than for avoiding e-cigarette use (79% vs. 18%; p < .001). Support for government regulation of e-cigarettes was high, with 91% of physicians endorsing policies that prevent minors from buying e-cigarettes., Conclusions: Physicians infrequently screen or counsel their adolescent patients about e-cigarette use, although e-cigarettes often come up during visits. Additional efforts by physicians could help prevent future use by adolescents. Recommending e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid to adolescent patients is inadvisable given the lack of evidence for efficacy in that population. As federal regulation of e-cigarettes remains in limbo, pediatricians and family medicine physicians can offer a powerful voice for informing regulations aimed at reducing use by adolescents., (Copyright © 2015 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We sought to understand smokers' perceived likelihood of health problems from using cigarettes and four non-cigarette tobacco products (NCTPs: e-cigarettes, snus, dissolvable tobacco, and smokeless tobacco). A US national sample of 6,607 adult smokers completed an online survey in March 2013. Participants viewed e-cigarette use as less likely to cause lung cancer, oral cancer, or heart disease compared to smoking regular cigarettes (all p < .001). This finding was robust for all demographic groups. Participants viewed using NCTPs other than e-cigarettes as more likely to cause oral cancer than smoking cigarettes but less likely to cause lung cancer. The dramatic increase in e-cigarette use may be due in part to the belief that they are less risky to use than cigarettes, unlike the other NCTPs. Future research should examine trajectories in perceived likelihood of harm from e-cigarette use and whether they affect regular and electronic cigarette use.

Background: In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a series of 36 graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. We sought to evaluate the effects of the labels on fear-related emotions about health consequences of smoking and smoking motivations of young adults., Methods: We conducted an experimental study in 2010-2011 with 325 smokers and non-smokers ages 18-30 years whom we recruited through community distribution lists in North Carolina and through a national survey company. Each participant viewed 27 labels (18 of the proposed labels with graphic images and text warnings and 9 with text-only warnings) in a random order, evaluating each label on understandability and its effects on fear-related reactions and discouragement from wanting to smoke., Results: Respondents found most of the proposed labels easy to understand. Of the 36 labels, 64% induced greater fear-related reactions and 58% discouraged respondents from wanting to smoke more than the corresponding text-only labels did. Labels with the greatest effects had photographs (as compared with drawings or other art graphics) or depicted diseased body parts or suffering or dead people. In almost every comparison, smokers reported lower fear-related reactions and feeling less discouraged from wanting to smoke relative to non-smokers., Conclusions: Most of the proposed labels enhanced fear-related reactions about health consequences of smoking and reduced motivations to smoke relative to text-only labels, although some had larger effects than others. All but one of the nine warning labels recently adopted by the FDA enhanced fear-related reactions and reduced smoking motivations., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The aim of our study was to explore reasons for starting and then stopping electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use. Among a national sample of 3878 U.S. adults who reported ever trying e-cigarettes, the most common reasons for trying were curiosity (53%); because a friend or family member used, gave, or offered e-cigarettes (34%); and quitting or reducing smoking (30%). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of people who started using e-cigarettes later stopped using them. Discontinuation was more common among those whose main reason for trying was not goal-oriented (e.g., curiosity) than goal-oriented (e.g., quitting smoking) (81% vs. 45%, p < 0.001). The most common reasons for stopping e-cigarette use were that respondents were just experimenting (49%), using e-cigarettes did not feel like smoking cigarettes (15%), and users did not like the taste (14%). Our results suggest there are two categories of e-cigarette users: those who try for goal-oriented reasons and typically continue using and those who try for non-goal-oriented reasons and then typically stop using. Research should distinguish e-cigarette experimenters from motivated users whose decisions to discontinue relate to the utility or experience of use. Depending on whether e-cigarettes prove to be effective smoking cessation tools or whether they deter cessation, public health programs may need distinct strategies to reach and influence different types of users.

Objective: We sought to systematically review the literature on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, also called electronic cigarettes) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs., Data Sources: We searched five databases for articles published between 2006 and 1 July 2013 that contained variations of the phrases 'electronic cigarette', 'e-cigarette' and 'electronic nicotine delivery'., Study Selection: Of the 244 abstracts identified, we excluded articles not published in English, articles unrelated to ENDS, dissertation abstracts and articles without original data on prespecified outcomes., Data Extraction: Two reviewers coded each article for ENDS awareness, use, reactions and beliefs., Data Synthesis: 49 studies met inclusion criteria. ENDS awareness increased from 16% to 58% from 2009 to 2011, and use increased from 1% to 6%. The majority of users were current or former smokers. Many users found ENDS satisfying, and some engaged in dual use of ENDS and other tobacco. No longitudinal studies examined whether ENDS serve as 'gateways' to future tobacco use. Common reasons for using ENDS were quitting smoking and using a product that is healthier than cigarettes. Self-reported survey data and prospective trials suggest that ENDS might help cigarette smokers quit, but no randomised controlled trials with probability samples compared ENDS with other cessation tools. Some individuals used ENDS to avoid smoking restrictions., Conclusions: ENDS use is expanding rapidly despite experts' concerns about safety, dual use and possible 'gateway' effects. More research is needed on effective public health messages, perceived health risks, validity of self-reports of smoking cessation and the use of different kinds of ENDS., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The prevalence of non-cigarette tobacco product use is on the rise across the globe, especially for waterpipes (also known as hookah, narghile, and shisha) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The scientific literature reveals that waterpipe tobacco smoking is associated with exposure to a variety of toxicants that can cause short- and long-term adverse health events. In contrast, there is far less evidence of health harms related to e-cigarette use, although the variety of products in this category makes it difficult to generalize. We searched the PubMed database for all publications on waterpipes and e-cigarettes from January 2000 to March 2014. The number of publications on waterpipes rose in a slow, linear pattern during this time, while the number of publications on e-cigarettes showed exponential growth. The different trends suggest there may be more interest in studying a novel nicotine product (the e-cigarette) over a traditional tobacco product (the waterpipe). We posit that, although the specific research needs for these products are different, public health would be served best by a more equitable research approach. Scientists should continue to devote attention to understanding the unknown long-term health effects of e-cigarettes and their potential to serve as harm reduction or smoking cessation tools while simultaneously investigating how to reduce waterpipe smoking given that it exposes users to toxicants known to cause harm to health. Recent regulatory action in the United States, which proposes to include waterpipes and e-cigarettes under some of the same regulations as tobacco cigarettes, makes such research particularly timely.

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems that have become increasingly popular in the United States. We sought to understand how U.S. adults hear about e-cigarettes., Methods: A national sample of 17,522 U.S. adults (≥ 18 years old) completed an online survey in March 2013 assessing their awareness of and sources of information about e-cigarettes., Results: Most respondents (86%) had heard of e-cigarettes. Current and former smokers were more likely to be aware of e-cigarettes than non-smokers. Males, younger adults, non-Hispanic Whites, and those with higher education were also more likely to have heard of e-cigarettes. The most commonly reported sources of information were another person, ads on television, and seeing e-cigarettes being sold, although the relative frequency of these sources differed for current, former, and never-smokers. Former and current smokers were more likely to have heard about e-cigarettes from e-cigarette users than were never-smokers. Adults age 30 years or younger were more likely than adults older than 30 years to have heard about e-cigarettes online., Conclusions: Nearly all U.S. adults had heard of e-cigarettes in 2013. By focusing on the most common channels of information, public health campaigns can more efficiently communicate information about e-cigarette safety and consider necessary regulations should companies use these channels for marketing that targets youth, non-tobacco users, and other at-risk groups., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery devices that have become popular among smokers. We conducted an experiment to understand adult smokers' responses to e-cigarette advertisements and investigate the impact of ads' arguments and imagery., Methods: A U.S. national sample of smokers who had never tried e-cigarettes (n=3253) participated in a between-subjects experiment. Smokers viewed an online advertisement promoting e-cigarettes using one of three comparison types (emphasising similarity to regular cigarettes, differences or neither) with one of three images, for nine conditions total. Smokers then indicated their interest in trying e-cigarettes., Results: Ads that emphasised differences between e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes elicited more interest than ads without comparisons (p<0.01), primarily due to claims about e-cigarettes' lower cost, greater healthfulness and utility for smoking cessation. However, ads that emphasised the similarities of the products did not differ from ads without comparisons. Ads showing a person using an e-cigarette created more interest than ads showing a person without an e-cigarette (p<0.01)., Conclusions: Interest in trying e-cigarettes was highest after viewing ads with messages about differences between regular and electronic cigarettes and ads showing product use. If e-cigarettes prove to be harmful or ineffective cessation devices, regulators might restrict images of e-cigarette use in advertising, and public health messages should not emphasise differences between regular and electronic cigarettes. To inform additional regulations, future research should seek to identify what advertising messages and features appeal to youth., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Purpose: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems that may serve as a "gateway" to tobacco use by adolescents. Use of e-cigarettes by U.S. adolescents rose from 3% in 2011 to 7% in 2012. We sought to describe healthcare providers' awareness of e-cigarettes and to assess their comfort with and attitudes toward discussing e-cigarettes with adolescent patients and their parents., Methods: A statewide sample (n = 561) of Minnesota healthcare providers (46% family medicine physicians, 20% pediatricians, and 34% nurse practitioners) who treat adolescents completed an online survey in April 2013., Results: Nearly all providers (92%) were aware of e-cigarettes, and 11% reported having treated an adolescent patient who had used them. The most frequently cited sources of information about e-cigarettes were patients, news stories, and advertisements, rather than professional sources. Providers expressed considerable concern that e-cigarettes could be a gateway to tobacco use but had moderately low levels of knowledge about and comfort discussing e-cigarettes with adolescent patients and their parents. Compared with pediatricians and nurse practitioners, family medicine physicians reported knowing more about e-cigarettes and being more comfortable discussing them with patients (both p < .05). Nearly all respondents (92%) wanted to learn more about e-cigarettes., Conclusions: Healthcare providers who treat adolescents may need to incorporate screening and counseling about e-cigarettes into routine preventive services, particularly if the prevalence of use continues to increase in this population. Education about e-cigarettes could help providers deliver comprehensive preventive services to adolescents at risk of tobacco use., (Copyright © 2014 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Vaccination in alternative settings, defined here as being outside of traditional primary care, can help address the pressing public health problem of low human papillomavirus vaccine coverage among adolescents in the United States. Pharmacies are promising because they are highly accessible and have well established immunization practices. However, pharmacies currently face policy and reimbursement challenges. School-located mass vaccination programs are also promising because of their high reach and demonstrated success in providing other vaccines, but control by local policymakers and challenges in establishing community partnerships complicate widespread implementation. Health centers in schools are currently too few to greatly increase access to human papillomavirus vaccine. Specialty clinics have experience with vaccination, but the older age of their patient populations limits their reach. Future steps to making alternative settings a success include expanding their use of statewide vaccine registries and improving their coordination with primary care providers.

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working to introduce new graphic warning labels for cigarette packages, the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years. We sought to examine whether warnings discouraged participants from wanting to smoke and altered perceived likelihood of harms among adolescent males and whether these warning effects varied by age., Methods: A national sample of 386 non-smoking American males ages 11-17 participated in an online experiment during fall 2010. We randomly assigned participants to view warnings using a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. The warnings described a harm of smoking (addiction or lung cancer) using text only or text plus an image used on European cigarette package warnings. Analyses tested whether age moderated the warnings' impact on risk perceptions and smoking motivations., Results: The warnings discouraged most adolescents from wanting to smoke, but lung cancer warnings discouraged them more than addiction warnings did (60% vs. 34% were "very much" discouraged, p<.001). Including an image had no effect on discouragement. The warnings affected several beliefs about the harms from smoking, and age moderated these effects. Adolescents said addiction was easier to imagine and more likely to happen to them than lung cancer. They also believed that their true likelihood of experiencing any harm was lower than what an expert would say., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that warnings focusing on lung cancer, rather than addiction, are more likely to discourage wanting to smoke among adolescent males and enhance their ability to imagine the harmful consequences of smoking. Including images on warnings had little effect on non-smoking male adolescents' discouragement or beliefs, though additional research on the effects of pictorial warnings for this at-risk population is needed as the FDA moves forward with developing new graphic labels.

Objectives: We conducted a longitudinal study to examine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among male adolescents and to identify vaccination predictors., Methods: In fall 2010 and 2011, a national sample of parents with sons aged 11 to 17 years (n = 327) and their sons (n = 228) completed online surveys. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of HPV vaccination that occurred between baseline and follow-up., Results: Only 2% of sons had received any doses of HPV vaccine at baseline, with an increase to 8% by follow-up. About 55% of parents who had ever received a doctor's recommendation to get their sons HPV vaccine did vaccinate between baseline and follow-up, compared with only 1% of parents without a recommendation. Fathers (odds ratio = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.09, 0.80) and non-Hispanic White parents (odds ratio = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.11, 0.76) were less likely to have vaccinated sons. Willingness to get sons HPV vaccine decreased from baseline to follow-up among parents (P < .001) and sons (P = .003)., Conclusions: Vaccination against HPV remained low in our study and willingness to vaccinate may be decreasing. Physician recommendation and education about HPV vaccine for males may be key strategies for improving vaccination.

Purpose: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a new type of device that delivers vaporized nicotine without the tobacco combustion of regular cigarettes. We sought to understand awareness of and willingness to try e-cigarettes among adolescent males, a group that is at risk for smoking initiation and may use e-cigarettes as a "gateway" to smoking., Methods: A national sample of 11-19-year-old males (n = 228) completed an online survey in November 2011. We recruited participants through their parents, who were members of a panel of U.S. households constructed using random-digit dialing and addressed-based sampling., Results: Only two participants (< 1%) had previously tried e-cigarettes. Among those who had not tried e-cigarettes, most (67%) had heard of them. Awareness was higher among older and non-Hispanic adolescents. Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) participants were willing to try either a plain or flavored e-cigarette, but willingness to try plain versus flavored varieties did not differ. Smokers were more willing to try any e-cigarette than nonsmokers (74% vs. 13%; OR 10.25, 95% CI 2.88, 36.46). Nonsmokers who had more negative beliefs about the typical smoker were less willing to try e-cigarettes (OR .58, 95% CI .43, .79)., Conclusions: Most adolescent males were aware of e-cigarettes, and a substantial minority were willing to try them. Given that even experimentation with e-cigarettes could lead to nicotine dependence and subsequent use of other tobacco products, regulatory and behavioral interventions are needed to prevent "gateway" use by adolescent nonsmokers. Campaigns promoting negative images of smokers or FDA bans on sales to youth may help deter use., (Copyright © 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Low uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine calls for innovative approaches. Offering the vaccine in settings outside the traditional medical home, such as schools and pharmacies, could increase use. We sought to characterize the acceptability of HPV vaccine delivery in these alternative settings using a national (US) sample of parents of adolescent males ages 11-17 y (n = 506) and their sons (n = 391) who completed our online surveys in Fall 2010. We used multivariable regression to identify correlates of parents' and sons' comfort with (i.e., acceptability of) alternative settings. Half of parents (50%) and over one-third of sons (37%) reported that they were comfortable with schools or pharmacies as locations for the sons to receive HPV vaccine. Parents and sons were more comfortable with HPV vaccination in alternative settings if the sons had not recently visited their health care providers or had previously received vaccines at school, or if parents and sons were comfortable talking with each other about new vaccines. Parents who perceived greater barriers to HPV vaccination were more comfortable with alternative settings, as were sons who perceived that their peers were more accepting of HPV vaccine (all p < 0.05). Offering HPV vaccine in alternative settings may increase vaccination, especially among hard-to-reach adolescents. For example, our results suggest that offering the vaccine in alternative settings to boys who had not had recent health care visits could increase uptake by more than 10%. Study findings also highlight factors that should be addressed to maximize the potential success of HPV vaccination programs.

While defaults may encourage some health behaviors, how defaults influence controversial behaviors is not well understood. We examined the effect of two default policies on parents' consent to have their adolescent sons hypothetically receive HPV vaccine at school. A national sample of 404 parents of adolescent sons participated in an online 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment. Factors varied the default consent policy (opt-in, opt-out, or neutral) and the number of vaccines sons would receive (HPV vaccine alone or along with two other recommended adolescent vaccines). Among parents wanting to get their sons HPV vaccine in the next year, consent was higher in the opt-in condition (compared to the opt-out condition) or if other recommended adolescent vaccines would be included. Default policies had no effect among parents undecided about HPV vaccination. Parents' consent for school-located HPV vaccination may be higher when presented as an opt-in decision and other vaccines are included.

Purpose: We examined parents' and adolescents' preferences regarding potential strategies to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates, including offering the vaccine in alternative settings, concomitant administration of vaccines, and optimizing the structure of vaccination medical visits., Methods: A national sample of U.S. parents of adolescent boys aged 11-17 years (n = 506) and their sons (n = 391) completed online surveys in August and September 2010. We used analysis of variance for mixed designs to examine preferences for vaccination settings., Results: Parents and sons were most comfortable with sons receiving HPV vaccine in a doctor's office. Parents of sons who had not visited their regular health care providers in the past year were more comfortable with sons receiving HPV vaccine at a public clinic (p < .001) or school (p < .05) compared with parents whose sons had recent visits. Results from the son survey showed a similar pattern. Parents and sons reported moderate levels of acceptability of concomitant administration. They most preferred to have the three HPV vaccine shots administered during brief nurse visits., Conclusions: Offering HPV vaccine in alternative settings and administering it with other recommended adolescent vaccines may increase uptake among adolescent boys. Parents and sons may prefer HPV vaccines be administered during brief nurse visits., (Copyright © 2012 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Many parents recall hearing of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine through drug company advertisements. This study sought to examine whether parents accurately recall the source (ie, sponsor) of advertisements promoting HPV vaccine and the impact of drug company advertisements., Methods: A U.S. national sample of 544 parents of adolescent boys aged 11-17 participated in an online between-subjects experiment. Parents viewed an advertisement encouraging HPV vaccination for boys with a logo from a randomly assigned source. Parents rated trust, likability and motivation for vaccination while viewing the advertisement and later indicated who they believed sponsored it., Results: Nearly half (43%) of parents who viewed a hypothetical advertisement containing a logo incorrectly identified the advertisement source. More parents correctly identified the source of drug company advertisements than advertisement from other sources (62% vs. 25%, OR 4.93, 95% CI 3.26 to 7.46). The majority of parents who saw a logo-free advertisement believed a drug company created it (60%). Among parents who correctly identified the advertisement source, drug company advertisements decreased motivation to vaccinate their sons, an association mediated by reduced liking of and trust in the advertisements., Conclusions: Parents were more accurate in identifying drug company advertisements, primarily because they tended to assume any advertisement was from a drug company. Public health organisations may need to take special measures to ensure their messages are not perceived as sponsored by drug companies.