Perceptions of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns Among Smokers With Lower Socioeconomic Status

McCullough, Anna; Meernik, Clare; Baker, Hannah; Jarman, Kristen L.; Walsh, Barbara; Goldstein, Adam O.

doi:10.1177/1524839917741485

Cited by 6 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A qualitative study on anti-smoking messages found culturally-targeted messages were more appealing to lower income smokers than other messages 67 . However, these low-SES smokers also reported scepticism about cessation messages and barriers to quitting related to stress, social contexts, and addiction 83 . Among blue collar construction workers, smoking cessation ads that emphasized family and work and presented smoking harms in the context of work hazards were more appealing than other messages 84 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature

Cruz¹,

Rose²,

Lienemann³

et al. 2019

Tob. Induc. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONWe reviewed research literature on pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns targeting eight vulnerable populations to determine key findings and research gaps. Results can inform tobacco policy and control efforts and the design of public education campaigns for these groups.METHODSFive journal databases in medicine, communication, and science, were used to identify 8875 peer-reviewed, original articles in English, published in the period 2004–2018. There were 144 articles that met inclusion criteria on pro-tobacco marketing or anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at eight US groups: women of reproductive age, racial/ethnic minority groups (African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native), Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) populations, groups with low socioeconomic status, rural/inner city residents, military/veterans, and people with mental health or medical co-morbidities. We summarized the number of articles for each population, type of tobacco, and pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus. Narrative summaries were organized by population and by pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus, with key strategies and gaps by group.RESULTSThere were more studies on pro-tobacco marketing rather than anti-tobacco campaigns, and on cigarettes rather than other tobacco products. Major gaps included studies on Asian Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, pregnant women, LGBT populations, and those with mental health or medical co-morbidities. Gaps related to tobacco products were found for hookah, snus, and pipe/roll-your-own tobacco in the pro-tobacco studies, and for all products except cigarettes in anti-tobacco studies. Common tobacco industry methods used were tailoring of product and package design and messages that were used to reach and appeal to different sociodemographic groups. Studies varied by research design making it difficult to compare results.CONCLUSIONSWe found major research gaps for specific groups and tobacco products. Public education campaigns need a stronger foundation in empirical studies focused on these populations. Research and practice would benefit from studies that permit comparisons across studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature

Cruz¹,

Rose²,

Lienemann³

et al. 2019

Tob. Induc. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Message engagement. The most occurring theme concerned message engagement, with a focus on how relatable a HII message is to its targeted population [18,26,30,34,37,38,51]. McCullough et al [37] and Veldheer [18] suggested that their participants' distrust of the HII source and preference for lay over expert knowledge may have reduced the intervention's effectiveness.…”

Section: Thematic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are anti‐smoking health‐information interventions less effective among low‐socioeconomic status groups? A systematic scoping review

Meurs

Çoban

Koster

et al. 2022

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues This paper identifies and synthesises explanations proposed in the literature for the (in)effectiveness of institutional anti‐smoking health‐information interventions (HII) among low‐socioeconomic status (SES) adults in high‐income countries. Approach We searched eight databases for relevant papers from various disciplines: Studies published in English since 2009, on the effectiveness among low‐SES adults of anti‐smoking HIIs, aimed at changing knowledge/behaviour, and conducted by official institutions, were included. Through a scoping review, we synthesised: study design, SES indicator, intervention type, intervention source, study population, outcomes, low‐SES effects, equity effects, proposed explanations and whether these were studied empirically. Key Findings Thirty‐eight studies were included in this scoping review. Seventeen suggested explanations for the (in)effectiveness of the HIIs in low‐SES adults, but only nine assessed them empirically. Thematic analysis yielded six themes: message engagement, material conditions, cognition, risk perception, social environment and self‐efficacy. Implications Explanations for intervention results are not always present, and empirical evidence for explanations is often not provided. Including such explanations and testing their empirical merits in future research can provide the crucial information needed for developing more effective anti‐smoking HIIs for low‐SES adults. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first review to explore the explanations proposed for why anti‐smoking HIIs are (in)effective among low‐SES adults. It contains insights for future studies aiming to provide empirical evidence on the causes of this (in)effectiveness, and concludes that such research is yet largely missing, but crucial to the quest for more effective and equitable anti‐smoking interventions.

show abstract

“…These themes are consistent within the broader literature on the factors important for establishing institutional trust [ 24 , 37 ]. In a formative qualitative study designed to inform program planning for the Connecticut Tobacco Control Program, McCullough and colleagues [ 38 ] conducted focus groups with primarily low SES adults who reported currently smoking. Though not explicitly focused on trust in tobacco control itself, their analysis suggested that participants distrusted tobacco control and held “negative attitudes about the tobacco industry’s and government entities’ perceived roles in sponsoring tobacco control campaigns” collaboratively, rendering ads untrustworthy and calling into question the motivations of tobacco control ([ 38 ] p. 553).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a formative qualitative study designed to inform program planning for the Connecticut Tobacco Control Program, McCullough and colleagues [ 38 ] conducted focus groups with primarily low SES adults who reported currently smoking. Though not explicitly focused on trust in tobacco control itself, their analysis suggested that participants distrusted tobacco control and held “negative attitudes about the tobacco industry’s and government entities’ perceived roles in sponsoring tobacco control campaigns” collaboratively, rendering ads untrustworthy and calling into question the motivations of tobacco control ([ 38 ] p. 553). As trust in tobacco control is dependent in part upon perceptions of benevolence—the notion that the government is acting in the best interest of the public ([ 24 ], p. 625)—these preliminary findings, if widespread, have serious implications for the effectiveness of tobacco control efforts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tobacco Harm Reduction as a Path to Restore Trust in Tobacco Control

Antin

Hunt

Annechino

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The controversy of tobacco harm reduction in the United States persists despite evidence that an important audience of tobacco prevention and control, i.e., the people who use or are likely to use nicotine and tobacco products, are engaging in practices that may be considered harm reduction. Despite this, a significant proportion of the US tobacco control and prevention field continues to be guided by a precept that there is “no safe tobacco,” therefore failing to acknowledge practices that may be used to reduce the harms associated with consuming combustible forms of nicotine and tobacco. In this commentary, we argue that ignoring the potential benefits of harm reduction strategies may unintentionally lead to an erosion of trust in tobacco control among some members of the public. Trust in tobacco control as an institution is crucial for the success of tobacco control efforts. To ensure trust, we must return to our basic principles of doing no harm, developing programs that are responsive to people’s experiences, and providing resources in assisting people to reduce the harms that may be associated with practices, such as smoking, which adversely affect health. Only by respecting an individual’s priorities can we cultivate trust and develop tobacco prevention efforts that are grounded in the realities of people’s lives and responsive to their needs.

show abstract

Perceptions of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns Among Smokers With Lower Socioeconomic Status

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature

Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature

Why are anti‐smoking health‐information interventions less effective among low‐socioeconomic status groups? A systematic scoping review

Tobacco Harm Reduction as a Path to Restore Trust in Tobacco Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About