34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding how perceptions of tobacco constituents and the FDA relate to effective and credible tobacco risk messaging: A national phone survey of U.S. adults, 2014–2015

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The passage of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has necessitated the execution of timely, innovative, and policy-relevant tobacco control research to inform Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory and messaging efforts. With recent dramatic changes to tobacco product availability and patterns of use, nationally representative data on tobacco-related perceptions and behaviors are vital, especially for vulnerable populations.

          Methods

          The UNC Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communication conducted a telephone survey with a national sample of adults ages 18 and older living in the United States (U.S.). The survey assessed regulatory relevant factors such as tobacco product use, tobacco constituent perceptions, and tobacco regulatory agency credibility. The study oversampled high smoking/low income areas as well as cell phone numbers to ensure adequate representation among smokers and young adults, respectively. Coverage extended to approximately 98 % of U.S. households.

          Results

          The final dataset ( N = 5,014) generated weighted estimates that were largely comparable to other national demographic and tobacco use estimates. Results revealed that over one quarter of U.S. adults, and over one third of smokers, reported having looked for information about tobacco constituents in cigarette smoke; however, the vast majority was unaware of what constituents might actually be present. Although only a minority of people reported trust in the federal government, two thirds felt that the FDA can effectively regulate tobacco products.

          Conclusions

          As the FDA continues their regulatory and messaging activities, they should expand both the breadth and availability of constituent-related information, targeting these efforts to reach all segments of the U.S. population, especially those disproportionately vulnerable to tobacco product use and its associated negative health outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors.

          How people intentionally change addictive behaviors with and without treatment is not well understood by behavioral scientists. This article summarizes research on self-initiated and professionally facilitated change of addictive behaviors using the key trans-theoretical constructs of stages and processes of change. Modification of addictive behaviors involves progression through five stages--pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance--and individuals typically recycle through these stages several times before termination of the addiction. Multiple studies provide strong support for these stages as well as for a finite and common set of change processes used to progress through the stages. Research to date supports a trans-theoretical model of change that systematically integrates the stages with processes of change from diverse theories of psychotherapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

            This article highlights disparities in cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in relation to race/ethnicity, and census data on poverty in the county or census tract of residence. The incidence and survival data derive from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program; mortality data are from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS); data on the prevalence of major cancer risk factors and cancer screening are from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by NCHS. For all cancer sites combined, residents of poorer counties (those with greater than or equal to 20% of the population below the poverty line) have 13% higher death rates from cancer in men and 3% higher rates in women compared with more affluent counties (less than 10% below the poverty line). Differences in cancer survival account for part of this disparity. Among both men and women, five-year survival for all cancers combined is 10 percentage points lower among persons who live in poorer than in more affluent census tracts. Even when census tract poverty rate is accounted for, however, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander men and African American and American Indian/Alaskan Native women have lower five-year survival than non-Hispanic Whites. More detailed analyses of selected cancers show large variations in cancer survival by race and ethnicity. Opportunities to reduce cancer disparities exist in prevention (reductions in tobacco use, physical inactivity, and obesity), early detection (mammography, colorectal screening, Pap tests), treatment, and palliative care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.

              Numeracy, how facile people are with basic probability and mathematical concepts, is associated with how people perceive health risks. Performance on simple numeracy problems has been poor among populations with little as well as more formal education. Here, we examine how highly educated participants performed on a general and an expanded numeracy scale. The latter was designed within the context of health risks. A total of 463 men and women aged 40 and older completed a 3-item general and an expanded 7-item numeracy scale. The expanded scale assessed how well people 1) differentiate and perform simple mathematical operations on risk magnitudes using percentages and proportions, 2) convert percentages to proportions, 3) convert proportions to percentages, and 4) convert probabilities to proportions. On average, 18% and 32% of participants correctly answered all of the general and expanded numeracy scale items, respectively. Approximately 16% to 20% incorrectly answered the most straightforward questions pertaining to risk magnitudes (e.g., Which represents the larger risk: 1%, 5%, or 10%?). A factor analysis revealed that the general and expanded risk numeracy items tapped the construct of global numeracy. These results suggest that even highly educated participants have difficulty with relatively simple numeracy questions, thus replicating in part earlier studies. The implication is that usual strategies for communicating numerical risk may be flawed. Methods and consequences of communicating health risk information tailored to a person's level of numeracy should be explored further.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kurt_ribisl@unc.edu
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                23 June 2016
                23 June 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 516
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), CB #7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440 USA
                [ ]Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC, CB #7295, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7295 USA
                [ ]Carolina Survey Research Laboratory, UNC, 730 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
                [ ]Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB #7420, 3101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7420 USA
                [ ]Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, UNC, CB #7595, Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7595 USA
                [ ]Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 USA
                [ ]School of Media and Journalism, UNC, CB #3365, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440 USA
                Article
                3151
                10.1186/s12889-016-3151-5
                4918079
                27333921
                a1a45944-09eb-42c8-852d-4bb65cc0d0b6
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 2 February 2016
                : 25 May 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: NIH grant P50 CA180907.
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Public health
                tobacco use,constituents,cigarette smoking,non-cigarette tobacco product,communication

                Comments

                Comment on this article