IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i11p1370-d118296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Some of the Cigar Warnings Mandated in the U.S. More Believable Than Others?

Author

Listed:
  • Kristen L. Jarman

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Sarah D. Kowitt

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Jennifer Cornacchione Ross

    (Department of Social Sciences & Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC 27157, USA)

  • Adam O. Goldstein

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

Abstract

Background : Text warnings are mandated on cigars sold in the United States (U.S.), however little published research has examined effectiveness of cigar warnings. This is the first study examining the believability of cigar warnings among adults in the U.S. Methods : Adults in the U.S. ( n = 5014) were randomized in a phone survey to receive one of three cigar-specific mandated warning messages (“Cigar smoking can cause cancers of the mouth and throat, even if you do not inhale”, “Cigar smoking can cause lung cancer and heart disease”, and “Cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes”) with one of four warning sources (no source, Surgeon General, CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), FDA (Food and Drug Administration)). Results : Most adults found the cigar warnings very believable (66.9%). Weighted logistic regression results indicate that the message “Cigar smoking can cause lung cancer and heart disease” was associated with higher odds of being very believable (AOR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.55, 2.70) and the message “Cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes” was associated with lower odds of being very believable (AOR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.92) compared to the message “Cigar smoking can cause cancers of the mouth and throat, even if you do not inhale”. Warning source had no impact on believability. Conclusions : We tested three of the currently mandated cigar warnings in the U.S. and found significant differences in believability between them. Further research on cigar warnings may improve communication to the public on cigar health risks, ultimately preventing uptake of cigars and promoting cessation among cigar users.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristen L. Jarman & Sarah D. Kowitt & Jennifer Cornacchione Ross & Adam O. Goldstein, 2017. "Are Some of the Cigar Warnings Mandated in the U.S. More Believable Than Others?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-9, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1370-:d:118296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1370/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1370/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    2. Nonnemaker, J. & Rostron, B. & Hall, P. & MacMonegle, A. & Apelberg, B., 2014. "Mortality and economic costs from regular cigar use in the United States, 2010," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(9), pages 86-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sullivan, Daniel & Schmitt, Harrison J. & Calloway, Eric E. & Clausen, Whitney & Tucker, Pamela & Rayman, Jamie & Gerhardstein, Ben, 2021. "Chronic environmental contamination: A narrative review of psychosocial health consequences, risk factors, and pathways to community resilience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    2. Lauren R. Pacek & Michael D. Sawdey & Kimberly H. Nguyen & Maria Cooper & Eunice Park-Lee & Amy L. Gross & Elisabeth A. Donaldson & Karen A. Cullen, 2023. "Trends and Associations of Past-30-Day Cigar Smoking in the U.S. by Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Sex, NSDUH 2002–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(18), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Jérôme Boutang & Michel de Lara, 2016. "Risk Marketing," Working Papers hal-01353821, HAL.
    4. Eric E. Calloway & Alethea L. Chiappone & Harrison J. Schmitt & Daniel Sullivan & Ben Gerhardstein & Pamela G. Tucker & Jamie Rayman & Amy L. Yaroch, 2020. "Exploring Community Psychosocial Stress Related to Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination: Lessons Learned from a Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Aaron Broun & Lilianna Phan & Danielle A. Duarte & Aniruddh Ajith & Bambi Jewett & Erin L. Mead-Morse & Kelvin Choi & Julia Chen-Sankey, 2022. "Physical and Sociocultural Community-Level Influences on Cigar Smoking among Black Young Adults: An In-Depth Interview Investigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    7. Brian L. Rostron & Catherine G. Corey & Enver Holder-Hayes & Bridget K. Ambrose, 2019. "Estimating the Potential Public Health Impact of Prohibiting Characterizing Flavors in Cigars throughout the US," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-7, September.
    8. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    9. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley, 2008. "Individual‐ and Community‐Level Effects on Risk Perception in Cancer Cluster Investigations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 161-178, February.
    10. John C. Besley & Nagwan R. Zahry & Aaron McCright & Kevin C. Elliott & Norbert E. Kaminski & Joseph D. Martin, 2019. "Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 571-585, March.
    11. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    12. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robert Mauro & Paul Slovic, 2010. "The Effects of Presenting Imprecise Probabilities in Intelligence Forecasts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 987-1001, June.
    13. Laura N. Rickard & Z. Janet Yang & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Gina M. Eosco & Clifford W. Scherer & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2017. "Sizing Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2334-2349, December.
    14. John C. Besley, 2012. "Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 25-38, January.
    15. Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley & Zheng Yang, 2008. "Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1552, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cigars; warnings; tobacco;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1370-:d:118296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.