RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Impact of a regional educational advertising campaign on harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, prevalence of e-cigarette use, and quit attempts among smokers
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19001610
DO 10.1101/19001610
A1 Harry Tattan-Birch
A1 Sarah E Jackson
A1 Charlotte Ide
A1 Linda Bauld
A1 Lion Shahab
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/07/08/19001610.abstract
AB Background We evaluated how effective an advertising campaign that was piloted by Cancer Research UK in January/February 2018 was at promoting quit attempts by increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking.Methods Adults (≥16 years, n = 2217) living in Greater Manchester (campaign region) and Yorkshire & Humber and the North East of England (control regions) completed cross-sectional surveys immediately before and after the campaign period. Surveys measured socio-demographics, perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, and motivation and attempts to quit smoking. We tested interactions between time (pre, post) and region (campaign, control).Results 36.7% (95% CI 33.0% – 40.6%) of those in the intervention region recognised the campaign. In the general population, interactions were non-significant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre-to post-campaign in the campaign (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 – 0.98). Among smokers, motivation to quit increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.25 – 7.16), with no other significant differences between regions over time. A Bayesian analysis confirmed that non-significant results were inconclusive.Conclusions Compared with the control region, the campaign was associated with an increase in smokers’ motivation to quit but a smaller increase in adults’ perception of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the campaign affected other outcomes.Competing Interest StatementLS has received honoraria for talks, an unrestricted research grant and travel expenses to attend meetings and workshops from Pfizer, and has acted as paid reviewer for grant awarding bodies and as a paid consultant for health care companies. All authors declare no financial links with tobacco companies or e-cigarette manufacturers or their representatives.Funding StatementThe educational advertising campaign and data collection were funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK). SJ?s salary is funded by CRUK (C1417/A22962) and the ESRC (ES/R005990/1). CI is employed by CRUK. LB is seconded part time to CRUK in an advisory role and her employer (the University of Edinburgh) receive funding from CRUK for a portion of her time. HTB?s salary is funded by an unrestricted grant provided by Pfizer under the GRAND scheme.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.NAI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.NAThe preregistered analysis plan, data and code used to generate results is available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/uswpj/).https://osf.io/uswpj/