The effect of conflicting public health guidance on smokers and vapers’ e-cigarette harm perceptions

Background: E-cigarettes are increasingly being viewed, incorrectly, as more harmful than cigarettes. This may discourage smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. One potential explanation for these increasingly harmful attitudes is conflicting information presented in the media, online and from public health bodies. Methods: In a prospectively registered online study, daily UK smokers who do not vape (n=334) and daily UK vapers (n=368) were randomised to receive either: 1) a consistent harm reduction statement from two different public health bodies (Harm Reduction); 2) a consistent negative statement about e-cigarette harms from two different public health bodies (Negative); 3) a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Conflict); 4) a statement of the risks of smoking followed by a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Smoking Risk + Conflict). Participants then answered questions regarding their e-cigarette harm perceptions. Results: The Negative condition had the highest e-cigarette harm perceptions, significantly higher than the Smoking Risk + Conflict condition (MD=5.4, SE=1.8, p<.016, d=0.3 [CI 0.73 to 10.04]), which did not differ from the Conflict condition (MD=1.5, SE=1.8, p=.836, d=0.1 [CI -3.14 to 6.17]). The Conflict condition differed from the Harm Reduction condition, where harm perceptions were lowest (MD=5.4, SE=1.8, p=.016, d=0.3 [CI 0.74 to 10.07]). Conclusions: These findings are the first to demonstrate that, compared to harm reduction information, conflicting information increases e-cigarette harm perceptions amongst vapers, and smokers who do not vape.

The role of conformity in mask-wearing during COVID-19

By September 2020, COVID-19 had claimed the lives of almost 1 million people worldwide, including more than 400,000 in the U.S. and Europe [1] To slow the spread of the virus, health officials advised social distancing, regular handwashing, and wearing a face covering [2]. We hypothesized that public adherence to the health guidance would be influenced by prevailing social norms, and the prevalence of these behaviors among others. We focused on mask-wearing behavior during fall 2020, and coded livestream public webcam footage of 1,200 individuals across seven cities. Results showed that only 50% of participants were correctly wearing a mask in public, and that this percentage varied as a function of the mask-wearing behavior of close and distant others in the immediate physical vicinity. How social normative information might be used to increase mask-wearing behavior is discussed. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus—particularly when used universally within a community setting” CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield in July 2020.

COVID Compatibility and Risk Negotiation in Online Dating during the COVID-19 Pandemic

We interviewed 31 individuals about their online dating life and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. We use literature on risk and health behaviors to generate four frames for dealing with risk associated with COVID-19 while dating: 1) Unconcerned about Risk, 2) Preliminary Risk Assessment, 3) Active Risk Negotiation, and 4) Risk Aversion. Further, we argue that risk perception causes daters to use implicit and explicit communication about health behaviors to determine COVID compatibility, a state of being in agreement with a partner about how to best minimize risk of contracting COVID-19. Daters want to know that their partner is behaving with similar regard for health guidance and that they are doing their best to keep those in their communities safe. Though daters may transition between frames throughout the course of the pandemic, we use these four frames to identify sets of beliefs, routines, and personal health practices across our sample that have relevance for social scientists, health communication scholars, and health care practitioners.

TeenCovidLife: a resource to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents in Scotland

TeenCovidLife is part of Generation Scotland’s CovidLife projects, a set of longitudinal observational studies designed to assess the psychosocial and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. TeenCovidLife focused on how adolescents in Scotland were coping during the pandemic. As of September 2021, Generation Scotland had conducted three TeenCovidLife surveys. Participants from previous surveys were invited to participate in the next, meaning the age ranges shifted over time. TeenCovidLife Survey 1 consists of data from 5,543 young people age 12 to 17, collected from 22 May to 5 July 2020, during the first school closures period in Scotland. TeenCovidLife Survey 2 consists of data from 2,245 young people aged 12 to 18, collected from 18 August to 14 October 2020, when the initial lockdown measures were beginning to ease, and schools reopened in Scotland. TeenCovidLife Survey 3 consists of data from 597 young people age 12 to 19, collected from 12 May to 27 June 2021, a year after the first survey, after the schools returned following the second lockdown in 2021. A total of 316 participants took part in all three surveys. TeenCovidLife collected data on general health and well-being, as well as topics specific to COVID-19, such as adherence to COVID-19 health guidance, feelings about school closures, and the impact of exam cancellations. Limited work has examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people. TeenCovidLife provides relevant and timely data to assess the impact of the pandemic on young people in Scotland. The dataset is available under authorised access from Generation Scotland; see the Generation Scotland website for more information.