Umeå University's logo

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack. Given that SRs already exist for many immunization-related topics, and to prevent duplication and overlap of reviews, a more practical approach may be for NITAGs to use existing SRs. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify relevant SRs, to select one SR from among multiple SRs, or to critically assess and effectively use them.

To support NITAGs, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Robert Koch Institute and collaborators developed the SYSVAC project, which consists of an online registry of systematic reviews on immunization-related topics and an e-learning course, that supports the use of them (both freely accessible at https://www.nitag-resource.org/sysvac-systematic-reviews). Drawing from the e-learning course and recommendations from an expert panel, this paper outlines methods for using existing systematic reviews when making immunization-related recommendations. With specific examples and reference to the SYSVAC registry and other resources, it offers guidance on locating existing systematic reviews; assessing their relevance to a research question, up-to-dateness, and methodological quality and/or risk of bias; and considering the transferability and applicability of their findings to other populations or settings.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations. Systematic reviews are recommended to be used in this process, but conducting them requires significant resources, which many NITAGs lack. Using existing systematic reviews could help address this problem.

The Robert Koch Institute and collaborators set up the SYSVAC2 project to facilitate the retrieval of existing systematic reviews and offer guidance on using them. This will include an online registry of systematic reviews relevant to immunization policy and an online course on how to use existing reviews. This report describes an international expert workshop held in December 2019 to develop consensus on methods for using existing reviews and other relevant factors for the registry and course.

Members from NITAGs representing different regions of the world presented their experiences of using systematic reviews and reflected on challenges inhibiting use. Three methodologists considered different aspects of using systematic reviews. Interactive sessions followed, where implications for SYSVAC2 were discussed. Participants supported having critical appraisal ratings, plain language summaries, keyword search, and data visualization functions in the registry. They suggested tailoring course content to different audiences and including overviews of reviews as a topic and examples of how NITAGs have used or could use existing reviews. Participants agreed that whether a review is out-of-date should be decided by those using the review rather than registry staff. The registry could help by highlighting the date of literature search or included primary studies. Participants recommended a visualization function to highlight overlap across reviews and guidance on handling challenges to using reviews, ideally, involving a practical element. No consensus was reached on which critical appraisal tool to use for reviews in the registry, but a majority of participants wanted registry staff to perform appraisals. Formative research is planned before the registry and online course are launched in 2020.

A common message in e-cigarette advertising is that e-cigarettes can be used anywhere. E-cigarette advertisements often express this message implicitly (e.g., "Whenever, wherever") alongside images of e-cigarettes that physically resemble combustible cigarettes. These implicit messages and "cigalike" images may cross-cue combustible cigarette smoking cognitions and behavior. This exploratory study was a 2 (message form: implicit or explicit e-cigarette use anywhere message) by 2 (presence or absence of e-cigarette cue) experiment with U.S. adult smokers (n = 2,201). Participants were randomized to view e-cigarette advertisements that varied by study condition. Three combustible cigarette outcomes were investigated: smoking cessation intention, smoking urges, and immediate smoking behavior. Mediation analysis was also performed to investigate mechanisms of the message form effect through descriptive and normative beliefs about smoking. Compared to its explicit counterpart, the implicit e-cigarette use anywhere message evoked greater smoking urges. Participants exposed to the implicit message also perceived cigarette smoking to be more prevalent and, in turn, reported greater cessation intention. There was no evidence of e-cigarette cue or message form × cue interaction effects. Implicit e-cigarette use anywhere messages may create a predisposition towards smoking compared to their explicitly written counterparts, but whether this effect undermines cessation deserves further attention.

INTRODUCTION: Sugars naturally occur in tobacco leaf but are also commonly added to cigarettes by tobacco companies. Added sugar increases levels of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. Little is known about smokers' knowledge of added sugar in cigarettes and awareness of its effects.

METHODS: Adult cigarette smokers were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk to participate in an online experiment on electronic cigarette advertising. After completing the experiment, participants (N = 4351) answered two items assessing knowledge and awareness of added sugar in cigarettes. Participants had the option of providing open-ended comments about the overall study, and two reviewers read and independently coded comments pertaining to the sugar items.

RESULTS: Only 5.5% of participants responded "yes" to the question: "Is sugar added to cigarettes?", and only 3.8% of participants indicated being aware that added sugar increases toxins in cigarette smoke. Forty-eight participants mentioned the sugar items when asked to comment about the overall questionnaire. Fifty-two percent of these comments expressed an interest in obtaining more information about added sugar, and 23% described the sugar items as interesting or informative. Three participants commented that learning about added sugar motivated them to quit or cut down on smoking.

CONCLUSIONS: Among a large sample of smokers, few reported knowledge of added sugar in cigarettes and awareness of its effects. Further, several smokers expressed an interest in learning more about added sugar. Messages about added sugar in cigarettes may be a promising new angle for campaigns to discourage smoking.

IMPLICATIONS: Few American smokers are aware that sugar is added to cigarettes, and some participants expressed a desire to learn more about this additive. Given such low awareness, the interest among smokers, and increased popular concerns about added sugar in foods and beverages, messaging about added sugar in cigarettes should be developed and tested for inclusion in public health media campaigns.

OBJECTIVES: We examined effects of e-cigarette ad messages and visual cues on outcomes related to combustible cigarette smoking cessation: smoking cessation intention, smoking urges, and immediate smoking behavior.

METHODS: US adult smokers (N = 3293) were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk and randomized to condition in a 3 (message: e-cigarette use anywhere, harm reduction, control) × 2 (e-cigarette cue presence or absence) between-subjects experiment. Stimuli were print ads for cigarette-like e-cigarettes ("cigalikes") that were manipulated for the experimental conditions. We conducted ANOVA and logistic regression analyses to investigate effects of the manipulations.

RESULTS: Message effects on cessation intention and smoking urges were not statistically significant. There was no evidence of cue effects or message × cue interactions across outcomes. Contrary to expectations, e-cigarette use anywhere and harm reduction messages were associated with lower odds of immediate smoking than the control message (AOR_EUA = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.58, 0.97, p = .026; AOR_HR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.55, 0.93, p = .013).

CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use anywhere and harm reduction messages may encourage smoking cessation, given the observed reduction in immediate smoking. E-cigarette cues may not influence smoking cessation outcomes. Future studies should investigate whether message effects are a result of smokers believing e-cigarettes to be effective cessation aids.

Background: Smoking rates among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people significantly exceed that of heterosexuals. Media interventions are an important part of tobacco control efforts, but limited information is available on LGB people's media use. Methods: A nationally representative sample of 12,900 U.S. adults completed an online questionnaire assessing media use, smoking status, and demographic information. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess relationships between media use with sexual orientation and smoking status.

Results: A total of 590 (4.6%) respondents identified as LGB, of which 29% were smokers. Regardless of sexual orientation and smoking status, the Internet was the most popular media channel used, followed by television and radio. LGB respondents had significantly greater odds of having accounts on social media websites, accessing Facebook daily, and being a frequent Internet user, compared to heterosexual respondents. Similar media use was found between smokers and non-smokers, but smokers had greater odds of being frequent television viewers and frequent Internet users, compared to non-smokers.

Conclusions: Compared to heterosexuals, LGB respondents reported greater use of the Internet, especially social media. Media campaigns targeting LGB populations can maximize reach by utilizing social media alongside traditional media channels.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the effects of special packaging (child-resistant, adult-friendly) and tamper-resistant packaging on health and behavioral outcomes in order to identify research gaps and implications for packaging standards for tobacco products.

METHODS: We searched seven databases for keywords related to special and tamper-resistant packaging, consulted experts, and reviewed citations of potentially relevant studies. 733 unique papers were identified. Two coders independently screened each title and abstract for eligibility. They then reviewed the full text of the remaining papers for a second round of eligibility screening. Included studies investigated a causal relationship between type of packaging or packaging regulation and behavioral or health outcomes and had a study population composed of consumers. Studies were excluded on the basis of publication type, if they were not peer-reviewed, and if they had low external validity. Two reviewers independently coded each paper for study and methodological characteristics and limitations. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved.

RESULTS: The review included eight studies: four assessing people's ability to access the contents of different packaging types and four evaluating the impact of packaging requirements on health-related outcomes. Child-resistant packaging was generally more difficult to open than non-child-resistant packaging. Child-resistant packaging requirements have been associated with reductions in child mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: Child-resistant packaging holds the expectation to reduce tobacco product poisonings among children under six.

BACKGROUND: Menthol cigarettes are used disproportionately by African American, female, and adolescent smokers. Twitter is also used disproportionately by minority and younger populations, providing a unique window into conversations reflecting social norms, behavioral intentions, and sentiment toward menthol cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to identify the content and frequency of conversations about menthol cigarettes, including themes, populations, user smoking status, other tobacco or substances, tweet characteristics, and sentiment. We also examined differences in menthol cigarette sentiment by prevalent categories, which allowed us to assess potential perceptions, misperceptions, and social norms about menthol cigarettes on Twitter. This approach can inform communication about these products, particularly to subgroups who are at risk for menthol cigarette use.

METHODS: Through a combination of human and machine classification, we identified 94,627 menthol cigarette-relevant tweets from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013 (1 year) from over 47 million tobacco-related messages gathered prospectively from the Twitter Firehose of all public tweets and metadata. Then, 4 human coders evaluated a random sample of 7000 tweets for categories, including sentiment toward menthol cigarettes.

RESULTS: We found that 47.98% (3194/6657) of tweets expressed positive sentiment, while 40.26% (2680/6657) were negative toward menthol cigarettes. The majority of tweets by likely smokers (2653/4038, 65.70%) expressed positive sentiment, while 91.2% (320/351) of nonsmokers and 71.7% (91/127) of former smokers indicated negative views. Positive views toward menthol cigarettes were predominant in tweets that discussed addiction or craving, marijuana, smoking, taste or sensation, song lyrics, and tobacco industry or marketing or tweets that were commercial in nature. Negative views toward menthol were more common in tweets about smoking cessation, health, African Americans, women, and children and adolescents-largely due to expression of negative stereotypes associated with these groups' use of menthol cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS: Examinations of public opinions toward menthol cigarettes through social media can help to inform the framing of public communication about menthol cigarettes, particularly in light of potential regulation by the European Union, US Food and Drug Administration, other jurisdictions, and localities.

BACKGROUND: Three categories of e-cigarette brands have emerged within the US market: e-cigarette brands developed by cigarette manufacturers, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation. In the absence of federal regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, we assessed differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these categories.

METHODS: Brand websites for top-selling e-cigarette brands from each of these categories were examined in October of 2015 to compare website access restrictions, online sales practices and products sold, including e-cigarette model type (eg, 'cigalike' vs advanced systems) and options available (eg, flavoured, nicotine free).

RESULTS: Website access to brands developed by cigarette manufacturers was restricted to users aged 21 years or older, and one website required user registration. In addition, these brands were exclusively reusable/rechargeable 'cigalikes.' Limited flavour options were available for these products, and nicotine-free options were not sold. In contrast, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation generally required website visitors to be 18, offered a nicotine-free option, and most offered disposable products and an array of flavoured products (eg, fruit/candy flavours).

CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study finds differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these three e-cigarette brand categories, with brands developed by cigarette manufacturers adopting a particularly distinctive product and sales strategy. Anticipated regulation of e-cigarettes in the USA may be influencing these product and sales decisions.