No abstract

Objectives We examined patterns in cigar use among young adults, aged 18–25 years, focusing on race/ethnicity and brand. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional waves of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002–2008, using multivariate logistic regression to assess time trends in past 30 days cigar use, past 30 days use of a “top 5” cigar brand, cigar use intensity, and age at first cigar use. Results Cigar use has increased among White non-Hispanic men aged 18 to 25 years, from 12.0% in 2002 to 12.7% in 2008. Common predictors of all outcomes included male gender and past 30 days use of cigarettes, marijuana, and blunts. Additional predictors of past 30 days cigar and “top 5” brand use included younger age, non-Hispanic Black or White race, lower income, and highest level of risk behavior. College enrollment predicted intensity of use and “top 5” brand use. Conclusions Recent legislative initiatives have changed how cigars are marketed and may affect consumption. National surveys should include measures of cigar brand and little cigar and cigarillo use to improve cigar use estimates.

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.

BackgroundSmoking remains one of the most pressing public health problems in the United States and internationally. The concurrent evolution of the Internet, social network science, and online communities offers a potential target for high-yield interventions capable of shifting population-level smoking rates and substantially improving public health.ObjectiveOur objective was to convene leading practitioners in relevant disciplines to develop the core of a strategic research agenda on online social networks and their use for smoking cessation, with implications for other health behaviors.MethodsWe conducted a 100-person, 2-day, multidisciplinary workshop in Washington, DC, USA. Participants worked in small groups to formulate research questions that could move the field forward. Discussions and resulting questions were synthesized by the workshop planning committee.ResultsWe considered 34 questions in four categories (advancing theory, understanding fundamental mechanisms, intervention approaches, and evaluation) to be the most pressing.ConclusionsOnline social networks might facilitate smoking cessation in several ways. Identifying new theories, translating these into functional interventions, and evaluating the results will require a concerted transdisciplinary effort. This report presents a series of research questions to assist researchers, developers, and funders in the process of efficiently moving this field forward.

No abstract

INTRODUCTIONSome low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) struggle to implement smoke-free policies. We sought to review the academic and gray literature, and propose a research agenda to improve implementation of smoke-free policies and make them more effective in LMICs.METHODSWe reviewed 10 databases for variations of (‘implementation’ /‘enforcement’ /‘compliance’) and (‘smoke-free’ /‘ban’ /‘restriction’) and (‘tobacco’ /‘smoking’). We also reviewed cited sources and the gray literature including non-governmental organization reports.We included articles that described problems that arose, attempted solutions, lessons learned, and research questions posed regarding smoke-free policy implementation in LMICs. We excluded studies of high-income countries, institution-level implementation, voluntary smoke-free policies, smoke-free homes, and outdoor smoke-free policies.RESULTSThe academic literature review led to 4931 unique articles, reduced to 1541 after title screening, 331 after abstract screening, and 101 after full-text review. The citation and gray literature review led to an additional 179 publications of which 67 met the inclusion criteria. In total we retained 168 sources. We conducted a narrative review and synthesis of the literature, extracting key themes and noting research gaps.CONCLUSIONSWe find that progress is urgently needed in five categories: identifying the critical lessons learned for effective implementation, evaluating different enforcement approaches, learning how to rejuvenate stalled smoke-free policies, learning how to increase ground-level will to enforce policies, and developing a conceptual framework that explains implementation. Investigation into these topics can improve implementation of smoke-free policies in LMICs.

Laws and treaties compel countries to inform the public about harmful chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke. To encourage relevant research by behavioral scientists, we provide a primer on cigarette smoke toxicology and summarize research on how the public thinks about cigarette smoke chemicals. We systematically searched PubMed in July 2016 and reviewed citations from included articles. Four central findings emerged across 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. First, people were familiar with very few chemicals in cigarette smoke. Second, people knew little about cigarette additives, assumed harmful chemicals are added during manufacturing, and perceived cigarettes without additives to be less harmful. Third, people wanted more information about constituents. Finally, well-presented chemical information increased knowledge and awareness and may change behavior. This research area is in urgent need of behavioral science. Future research should investigate whether educating the public about these chemicals increases risk perceptions and quitting.

Many smokers had the misperception that smoking VLNC cigarettes is less likely to cause cancer, and some stated that they would be less likely to quit. A VLNC standard may be more effective if accompanied by a communication campaign that emphasises the continued dangers of smoking VLNC cigarettes due to the many toxic chemicals in smoke.