Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Developing mobile phone text messages for tobacco risk communication among college students: a mixed methods study

Authors: Alexander V. Prokhorov, Tamara C. Machado, Karen S. Calabro, Elizabeth A. Vanderwater, Damon J. Vidrine, Keryn P. Pasch, Salma K. Marani, Meredith Buchberg, Aditya Wagh, Sophia C. Russell, Katarzyna W. Czerniak, Gabrielle C. Botello, Mackenzie H. Dobbins, Georges E. Khalil, Cheryl L. Perry

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Engaging young adults for the purpose of communicating health risks associated with nicotine and tobacco use can be challenging since they comprise a population heavily targeted with appealing marketing by the evolving tobacco industry. The Food and Drug Administration seeks novel ways to effectively communicate risks to warn about using these products. This paper describes the first step in developing a text messaging program delivered by smartphones that manipulate three messaging characteristics (i.e., depth, framing, and appeal).

Methods

Perceptions of community college students were described after previewing text messages designed to inform about risks of using conventional and new tobacco products. Thirty-one tobacco users and nonusers, aged 18–25 participated in five focus discussions held on two community college campuses. Attendees reviewed prototype messages and contributed feedback about text message structure and content. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using NVivo Version 10.

Results

Most participants were female and two-thirds were ethnic minorities. A variety of conventional and new tobacco products in the past month were used by a third of participants. Three identified domains were derived from the qualitative data. These included perceived risks of using tobacco products, receptivity to message content, and logistical feedback regarding the future message campaign.

Conclusion

Overall, participants found the messages to be interesting and appropriate. A gap in awareness of the risks of using new tobacco products was revealed. Feedback on the prototype messages was incorporated into message revisions. These findings provided preliminary confirmation that the forthcoming messaging program will be appealing to young adults.
Literature
5.
go back to reference Johnston L, O’Malley P, Bachman J, Schulenberg J, Meich R. Monitoring the Future: National survey on drug use 1975–2014 college students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research; 2015. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/. Accessed 25 Sept 2016. Johnston L, O’Malley P, Bachman J, Schulenberg J, Meich R. Monitoring the Future: National survey on drug use 1975–2014 college students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research; 2015. http://​www.​monitoringthefut​ure.​org/​. Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
6.
go back to reference Sterling KL, Fryer CS, Majeed B, Duong MM. Promotion of waterpipe tobacco use, its variants and accessories in young adult newspapers: a content analysis of message portrayal. Health Educ Res. 2015;30:152–61.CrossRefPubMed Sterling KL, Fryer CS, Majeed B, Duong MM. Promotion of waterpipe tobacco use, its variants and accessories in young adult newspapers: a content analysis of message portrayal. Health Educ Res. 2015;30:152–61.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Berg CJ, Stratton E, Schauer GL, Lewis M, Wang Y, Windle M, Kegler M. Perceived harm, addictiveness, and social acceptability of tobacco products and marijuana among young adults: marijuana, hookah, and electronic cigarettes win. Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50:79–89.CrossRefPubMed Berg CJ, Stratton E, Schauer GL, Lewis M, Wang Y, Windle M, Kegler M. Perceived harm, addictiveness, and social acceptability of tobacco products and marijuana among young adults: marijuana, hookah, and electronic cigarettes win. Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50:79–89.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Lee YO, Hebert CJ, Nonnemaker JM, Kim AE. Multiple tobacco product use among adults in the United States: Cigarettes, cigars, electronic cigarettes, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and snus. Prev Med. 2014;62:14–9.CrossRefPubMed Lee YO, Hebert CJ, Nonnemaker JM, Kim AE. Multiple tobacco product use among adults in the United States: Cigarettes, cigars, electronic cigarettes, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and snus. Prev Med. 2014;62:14–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Villanti AC, Cobb CO, Cohn AM, Williams VF, Rath JM. Correlates of hookah use and predictors of hookah trial in U.S. young adults. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48:742–6.CrossRefPubMed Villanti AC, Cobb CO, Cohn AM, Williams VF, Rath JM. Correlates of hookah use and predictors of hookah trial in U.S. young adults. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48:742–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Gottlieb JC, Cohen LM, Haslam AK. Comparing college smokers’ and dual users’ expectancies towards cigarette smoking. Addict Behav. 2014;39:1784–8.CrossRefPubMed Gottlieb JC, Cohen LM, Haslam AK. Comparing college smokers’ and dual users’ expectancies towards cigarette smoking. Addict Behav. 2014;39:1784–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Goodwin RD, Grinberg A, Shapiro J, Keith D, McNeil MP, Taha F, Jiang B, Hart CL. Hookah Use Among College Students: Prevalence, Drug Use, and Mental Health. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;141:16–20.CrossRefPubMed Goodwin RD, Grinberg A, Shapiro J, Keith D, McNeil MP, Taha F, Jiang B, Hart CL. Hookah Use Among College Students: Prevalence, Drug Use, and Mental Health. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;141:16–20.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Butler KM, Ickes MJ, Rayens MK, Wiggins AT, Hahn EJ. Polytobacco Use Among College Students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18:163–9.CrossRefPubMed Butler KM, Ickes MJ, Rayens MK, Wiggins AT, Hahn EJ. Polytobacco Use Among College Students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18:163–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hospital MM, Wagner EF, Morris SL, Sawant M, Siqueira LM, Soumah M. Developing an SMS Intervention for the Prevention of Underage Drinking: Results From Focus Groups. Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51:155–64.CrossRefPubMed Hospital MM, Wagner EF, Morris SL, Sawant M, Siqueira LM, Soumah M. Developing an SMS Intervention for the Prevention of Underage Drinking: Results From Focus Groups. Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51:155–64.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Suffoletto B, Kristan J, Callaway C, Kim KH, Chung T, Monti PM, Clark DB. A text message alcohol intervention for young adult emergency department patients: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64:664–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Suffoletto B, Kristan J, Callaway C, Kim KH, Chung T, Monti PM, Clark DB. A text message alcohol intervention for young adult emergency department patients: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64:664–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014.
20.
go back to reference Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer; 1986. p. 1–24.CrossRef Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer; 1986. p. 1–24.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.CrossRefPubMed Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Holbrook MB. Beyond attitude structure: Toward the informational determinants of attitude. J Market Res. 1978;15:545–56. Holbrook MB. Beyond attitude structure: Toward the informational determinants of attitude. J Market Res. 1978;15:545–56.
25.
go back to reference Vidrine JI, Simmons VN, Brandon TH. Construction of Smoking‐Relevant Risk Perceptions Among College Students: The Influence of Need for Cognition and Message Content. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007;37:91–114.CrossRef Vidrine JI, Simmons VN, Brandon TH. Construction of Smoking‐Relevant Risk Perceptions Among College Students: The Influence of Need for Cognition and Message Content. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007;37:91–114.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Montgomery SB, De Borba-Silva M, Singh P, Dos Santos H, Job JS, Brink TL. Exploring Demographic and Substance Use Correlates of Hookah Use in a Sample of Southern California Community College Students. Calif J Health Promot. 2015;13:26–37.PubMedPubMedCentral Montgomery SB, De Borba-Silva M, Singh P, Dos Santos H, Job JS, Brink TL. Exploring Demographic and Substance Use Correlates of Hookah Use in a Sample of Southern California Community College Students. Calif J Health Promot. 2015;13:26–37.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Latimer LA, Batanova M, Loukas A. Prevalence and harm perceptions of various tobacco products among college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16:519–26.CrossRefPubMed Latimer LA, Batanova M, Loukas A. Prevalence and harm perceptions of various tobacco products among college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16:519–26.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Doran N, Brikmanis K. Expectancies for and use of e-cigarettes and hookah among young adult non-daily smokers. Addict Behav. 2016;60:154–9.CrossRefPubMed Doran N, Brikmanis K. Expectancies for and use of e-cigarettes and hookah among young adult non-daily smokers. Addict Behav. 2016;60:154–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD. Young Adults’ Risk Perceptions of Various Tobacco Products Relative to Cigarettes: Results From the National Young Adult Health Survey. Health Educ Behav. 2016;43:328–36.CrossRefPubMed Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD. Young Adults’ Risk Perceptions of Various Tobacco Products Relative to Cigarettes: Results From the National Young Adult Health Survey. Health Educ Behav. 2016;43:328–36.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups in qualitative research. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1996. Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups in qualitative research. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1996.
32.
go back to reference Twinn D. An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:654–61.CrossRefPubMed Twinn D. An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:654–61.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.
34.
go back to reference Langford BE, Schoenfeld G, Izzo G. Nominal grouping sessions vs focus groups. Qual Mark Res Int J. 2002;5:58–70.CrossRef Langford BE, Schoenfeld G, Izzo G. Nominal grouping sessions vs focus groups. Qual Mark Res Int J. 2002;5:58–70.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Developing mobile phone text messages for tobacco risk communication among college students: a mixed methods study
Authors
Alexander V. Prokhorov
Tamara C. Machado
Karen S. Calabro
Elizabeth A. Vanderwater
Damon J. Vidrine
Keryn P. Pasch
Salma K. Marani
Meredith Buchberg
Aditya Wagh
Sophia C. Russell
Katarzyna W. Czerniak
Gabrielle C. Botello
Mackenzie H. Dobbins
Georges E. Khalil
Cheryl L. Perry
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4027-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue