Cruz Tess Boley, Rose Shyanika W, Lienemann Brianna A, Byron M Justin, Meissner Helen I, Baezconde-Garbanati Lourdes, Huang Li-Ling, Carroll Dana M, Soto Claradina, Unger Jennifer B
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States.
Truth Initiative Schroeder Institute, Washington, United States.
Tob Induc Dis. 2019 Sep 18;17:68. doi: 10.18332/tid/111397. eCollection 2019.
We reviewed research literature on pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns targeting eight vulnerable populations to determine key findings and research gaps. Results can inform tobacco policy and control efforts and the design of public education campaigns for these groups.
Five journal databases in medicine, communication, and science, were used to identify 8875 peer-reviewed, original articles in English, published in the period 2004-2018. There were 144 articles that met inclusion criteria on pro-tobacco marketing or anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at eight US groups: women of reproductive age, racial/ethnic minority groups (African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native), Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) populations, groups with low socioeconomic status, rural/inner city residents, military/veterans, and people with mental health or medical co-morbidities. We summarized the number of articles for each population, type of tobacco, and pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus. Narrative summaries were organized by population and by pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus, with key strategies and gaps by group.
There were more studies on pro-tobacco marketing rather than anti-tobacco campaigns, and on cigarettes rather than other tobacco products. Major gaps included studies on Asian Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, pregnant women, LGBT populations, and those with mental health or medical co-morbidities. Gaps related to tobacco products were found for hookah, snus, and pipe/roll-your-own tobacco in the pro-tobacco studies, and for all products except cigarettes in anti-tobacco studies. Common tobacco industry methods used were tailoring of product and package design and messages that were used to reach and appeal to different sociodemographic groups. Studies varied by research design making it difficult to compare results.
We found major research gaps for specific groups and tobacco products. Public education campaigns need a stronger foundation in empirical studies focused on these populations. Research and practice would benefit from studies that permit comparisons across studies.
我们回顾了针对八个易受影响人群的亲烟草营销和反烟草运动的研究文献，以确定主要研究结果和研究差距。研究结果可为烟草政策与控制措施以及针对这些群体的公共教育运动设计提供参考。
利用医学、传播学和科学领域的五个期刊数据库，识别出2004年至2018年期间发表的8875篇英文同行评审原创文章。有144篇文章符合纳入标准，涉及针对美国八个群体的亲烟草营销或反烟草运动：育龄妇女、种族/族裔少数群体（非裔美国人、西班牙裔/拉丁裔、亚裔/太平洋岛民和美国印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民）、女同性恋者/男同性恋者/双性恋者/跨性别者（LGBT）群体、社会经济地位较低群体、农村/市中心居民、军人/退伍军人以及患有精神疾病或合并其他疾病的人群。我们总结了针对每个群体、烟草类型以及亲烟草或反烟草重点的文章数量。叙述性总结按群体以及亲烟草或反烟草重点进行组织，并列出各群体的关键策略和差距。
关于亲烟草营销的研究多于反烟草运动的研究，关于香烟的研究多于其他烟草产品的研究。主要差距包括针对亚裔美国人、美国印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民、孕妇、LGBT群体以及患有精神疾病或合并其他疾病人群的研究。在亲烟草研究中，水烟、口含烟以及手卷烟/自卷烟方面存在与烟草产品相关的差距；在反烟草研究中，除香烟外的所有产品均存在差距。烟草行业常用的方法包括针对不同社会人口群体定制产品、包装设计和信息。研究设计各不相同，难以比较结果。
我们发现特定群体和烟草产品存在重大研究差距。公共教育运动需要以针对这些人群的实证研究为更坚实基础。允许跨研究比较的研究将使研究和实践受益。
