Addictive behaviors · 2024
Does noticing cigar warnings associate with cigar harm perceptions and smoking behaviors? Analysis from Wave 5 of the population assessment of tobacco and health study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gratale Stefanie K, Chen-Sankey Julia, Ganz Ollie, Teotia Arjun, Strasser Andrew A, Schroth Kevin, Delnevo Cristine D, Wackowski Olivia A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the US, cigar warning label standards are less stringent than cigarette warning requirements and are not uniformly required; research is needed about warning efficacy in promoting cigar risk beliefs, discouraging use and supporting public health.
METHODS: Using data from the PATH Study (Wave 5), we analyzed associations between noticing cigar warnings and perceived harm from cigar use, frequency of thinking about harms, and effects of warnings labels.
RESULTS: Among adults who smoke cigars, respondents noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. never/rarely) had higher odds of thinking about harms of their tobacco use often/very often (cigarillos 30% vs. 19%, p <.001, aOR 1.80 [1.27, 2.56]); filtered cigars: 43% vs. 16%, p <.001, aOR 3.81 [2.50, 5.82]) and of reporting that smoking cigars is very/extremely harmful (cigarillos: 59% vs. 46%, p =.001, aOR 1.45 [1.05, 1.99]). A substantial majority found cigar warnings to be very/extremely believable (cigarillos: 63%, filtered cigars: 59%, traditional cigars: 65%), with 16%, 24% and 12% respectively reporting past-30-day warning avoidance. Those noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. rarely) had higher rates of reporting that warnings sometimes/often/very often stopped them from having a cigar in the past 30 days (cigarillos: 36% vs. 10%; filtered cigars: 50% versus 6%; traditional cigars: 30% versus 9%; p's < 0.001) and that warnings made them somewhat/a lot more likely to quit smoking (cigarillos: 55% versus 37%, p <.01; filtered cigars: 55% versus 26%, p <.001; traditional cigars: 39% vs. 24%, p <.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential public health benefits of mandating the presence and increasing salience of cigar warning labels.
METHODS: Using data from the PATH Study (Wave 5), we analyzed associations between noticing cigar warnings and perceived harm from cigar use, frequency of thinking about harms, and effects of warnings labels.
RESULTS: Among adults who smoke cigars, respondents noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. never/rarely) had higher odds of thinking about harms of their tobacco use often/very often (cigarillos 30% vs. 19%, p <.001, aOR 1.80 [1.27, 2.56]); filtered cigars: 43% vs. 16%, p <.001, aOR 3.81 [2.50, 5.82]) and of reporting that smoking cigars is very/extremely harmful (cigarillos: 59% vs. 46%, p =.001, aOR 1.45 [1.05, 1.99]). A substantial majority found cigar warnings to be very/extremely believable (cigarillos: 63%, filtered cigars: 59%, traditional cigars: 65%), with 16%, 24% and 12% respectively reporting past-30-day warning avoidance. Those noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. rarely) had higher rates of reporting that warnings sometimes/often/very often stopped them from having a cigar in the past 30 days (cigarillos: 36% vs. 10%; filtered cigars: 50% versus 6%; traditional cigars: 30% versus 9%; p's < 0.001) and that warnings made them somewhat/a lot more likely to quit smoking (cigarillos: 55% versus 37%, p <.01; filtered cigars: 55% versus 26%, p <.001; traditional cigars: 39% vs. 24%, p <.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential public health benefits of mandating the presence and increasing salience of cigar warning labels.