Linking the content to demographic reach of online advertising of electronic nicotine delivery systems

Relationship between population characteristics, e-cigarette and tobacco-related perceptions, and likelihood of ever using e-cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are a relatively new type of nicotine-containing product that has risen greatly in use within the past decade, displacing conventional tobacco products as the dominant source of nicotine exposure by many groups. Among those impacted are large sections of US youth. Though health outcomes associated with ENDS use are still being assessed, several potential harms have been noted in the extant literature. The purpose of this study is to examine which US youth subpopulations are at greatest risk for ENDS ever use and how perceptions pertaining to nicotine-containing products relate to this risk.

METHODS

A nationwide online survey was administered to US youth ENDS users and non-users aged 13–18 years. A total weighted sample of 2501 participants was obtained. Statistical analyses included binomial logistic regression and a likelihood ratio test.

RESULTS

Of these youth, 1346 (53.8%) reported having ever used an ENDS product. Those most likely to have used ENDS were White males in their late teens. Those who reported ever using a conventional tobacco product were much more likely to have reported ever using ENDS (AOR= 19.96; 95% CI: 15.30–26.05). A number of perceptions related to nicotine-containing products, including product safety and health effects, were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of ENDS use.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain sections of the US youth population have elevated odds of being ENDS ever users. As increasing evidence supports the need to combat ENDS use by youth, effectively targeted education and prevention campaigns will be necessary.

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

INTRODUCTION

We 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.

METHODS

Five 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.

RESULTS

There 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.

CONCLUSIONS

We 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.