SHORT REPORT
Exploring the impact of efficacy messages on cessation-related outcomes using Ecological Momentary Assessment
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Health Promotion, Education, & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
2
School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
3
Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
4
School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
5
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
6
Department of Tobacco Research, Center for Population Health Studies, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico
Publish date: 2018-09-21
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(September):44
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Observational studies indicate that cigarette package inserts with efficacy messages about the benefits of quitting (i.e. response efficacy) and recommendations for successful cessation increase smokers’ self-efficacy to quit and promote sustained cessation. However, the effects of inserts with such efficacy messages have not been studied using experimental designs. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess smokers’ responses to efficacy inserts.

Material and Methods:
In a randomized case-crossover study among smokers from the United States (n=23), participants received a one-week supply of cigarettes with efficacy inserts and a one-week supply without any inserts, and were randomized to use the packs with inserts on either the first or second week of the study. For 14 consecutive days, participants used a smartphone to answer brief surveys on cessation-related variables during smoking sessions and at the beginning of each day. Multilevel mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models compared responses during the insert period to those of the non-insert period.

Results:
The insert period was associated with greater desire to quit (b=0.21, p=0.012), motivation to quit (b=0.18, p=0.001), self-efficacy to cut down (b=0.26, p<0.001) and to quit (b=0.28, p<0.000), and response efficacy/ perceived benefits of quitting (b=0.13, p=0.012). Insert exposure was not significantly associated with forgoing cigarettes (OR=1.9, p=0.2).

Conclusions:
Results from this EMA study suggest that inserts with efficacy messages may promote determinants of smoking cessation. This is consistent with observational research in Canada, which is the only country to use inserts with efficacy messages as well as pictorial warnings about smoking risks on the outside of packs. Future studies should assess the extent to which efficacy inserts can not only be used to communicate health information to smokers but also work in synergy with pictorial warnings.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Victoria Lambert   
Department of Health Promotion, Education, & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 915 Greene Street, 29201 Columbia, United States
 
REFERENCES (23):
1. Thrasher JF, Swayampakala K, Cummings KM, et al. Cigarette package inserts can promote efficacy beliefs and sustained smoking cessation attempts: A longitudinal assessment of an innovative policy in Canada. Prev Med. 2016;88:59-65. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.03.006
2. Thrasher JF, Osman A, Abad-Vivero EN, et al. The Use of Cigarette Package Inserts to Supplement Pictorial Health Warnings: An Evaluation of the Canadian Policy. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):870-875. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu246
3. Thrasher JF, Anshari D, Lambert-Jessup V, et al. Assessing Smoking Cessation Messages with a Discrete Choice Experiment. Tob Regul Sci. 2018;4(2):73-87. doi:10.18001/TRS.4.2.7
4. Thrasher JF, Islam F, Davis RE, et al. Testing cessation messages for cigarette package inserts: Findings from a best/worst discrete choice experiment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2):1-21. doi:10.3390/ijerph15020282
5. Cho YJ, Thrasher JF, Yong HH, et al. Path analysis of warning label effects on negative emotions and quit attempts: A longitudinal study of smokers in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the US. Soc Sci Med. 2018;197:226-234. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.003
6. Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman R, et al. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(6):1178-1204. doi:10.1037/a0039729
7. Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992;59(4):329-349. doi:10.1080/03637759209376276
8. Schüz N, Ferguson SG. Australian smokers’ and nonsmokers’ exposure to antismoking warnings in day-to-day life: A pilot study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):876-881. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu253
9. Schüz N, Eid M, Schüz B, Ferguson SG. Immediate effects of plain packaging health warnings on quitting intention and potential mediators: Results from two ecological momentary assessment studies. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016;30(2):220-228. doi:10.1037/adb0000146
10. Mays D, Murphy SE, Johnson AC, Kraemer JD, Tercyak KP. A pilot study of research methods for determining the impact of pictorial cigarette warning labels among smokers. Tob Induc Dis. 2014;12(1). doi:10.1186/1617-9625-12-16
11. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological Momentary Assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4(1):1-32. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
12. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J. Measuring the Heaviness of Smoking: using self‐reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addict. 1989;84(7):791-800. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03059.x
13. Andrews JO, Felton G, Wewers ME, Waller J, Tingen M. The effect of a multi-component smoking cessation intervention in African American women residing in public housing. Res Nurs Heal. 2007;30(1):45-60. doi:10.1002/nur.20174
14. Brandon TH, Tiffany ST, Obremski KM, Baker TB. Postcessation cigarette use: The process of relapse. Addict Behav. 1990;15(2):105-114. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(90)90013-N
15. O ’hea EL, Boudreaux ED, Jeffries SK, Taylor CLC, Scarinci IC, Brantley PJ. Stage of Change Movement Across Three Health Behaviors: The Role of Self-Efficacy. Am J Heal Promot. 2004;19(2):94-102. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-19.2.94
16. Cinciripini PM, Wetter DW, Fouladi RT, et al. The effects of depressed mood on smoking cessation: Mediation by postcessation self-efficacy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(2):292-301. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.292
17. Borland R, Yong HH, Wilson N, et al. How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: Findings from the ITC Four-Country survey. Addiction. 2009;104(4):669-675. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02508.x
18. Partos TR, Borland R, Thrasher JF, et al. The predictive utility of micro indicators of concern about smoking: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country study. Addict Behav. 2014;39(8):1235-1242. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.04.001
19. Li L, Borland R, Fong GT, et al. Smoking-related thoughts and microbehaviours, and their predictive power for quitting. Tob Control. 2015;24(4):354-361. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051384
20. Cohen J. A Power Primer summary. Quant Methods Psychol. 1992;112(1):155-159. doi:10.1038/141613a0
21. Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, et al. Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: Findings from four countries over five years. Tob Control. 2009;18(5):358-364. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.028043
22. Li L, Borland R, Yong H, et al. Longer term impact of cigarette package warnings in Australia compared with the United Kingdom and Canada. Health Educ Res. 2015;30(1):67-80. doi:10.1093/her/cyu074
23. Evans AT, Peters E, Strasser AA, Emery LF, Sheerin KM, Romer D. Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: Results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142879
eISSN:1617-9625