Predictors of U.S. Adults' Opinion Toward an R-Rating Policy for Movies With Cigarette Smoking.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Education & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1177/10901981241239933
Nikhil Ahuja, Asos Mahmood, Satish Kedia, Patrick J Dillon
{"title":"Predictors of U.S. Adults' Opinion Toward an R-Rating Policy for Movies With Cigarette Smoking.","authors":"Nikhil Ahuja, Asos Mahmood, Satish Kedia, Patrick J Dillon","doi":"10.1177/10901981241239933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recently, multiple health organizations and advocacy groups have pushed for giving an R-rating for movies depicting tobacco imagery. This study examined several predictors of U.S. adults' opinion toward an R-rating policy for movies depicting cigarette smoking. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2020 cycle), for a nationally representative sample of 3,865 US adults (aged ≥ 18). The outcome variable was opinion toward an R-rating policy (support, neutral, and oppose) for movies depicting cigarette smoking. A weighted adjusted multinomial logistic regression analysis with comparisons of support versus oppose, support versus neutral, and neutral versus oppose was performed. About 48.2% of respondents were supportive of, 31.1% were neutral toward, and 20.7% were opposed to an R-rating policy. Adults aged 50 to 64 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.28, <i>p</i> = .008) and ≥65 years (aOR = 4.54, <i>p</i> <.001) (vs. 18-34 years) were more likely to support the R-rating policy than oppose it. Non-Hispanic Black respondents (vs. non-Hispanic Whites) were 1.74 times more likely to support than oppose the policy (aOR = 1.74, <i>p</i> = .04), whereas adults with a household annual income of US$75,000 or more (vs. <$20,000) and those with moderate (vs. liberal) political viewpoints were more likely to be neutral than oppose the policy. Former and current e-cigarette users (vs. never users) were less likely to support than oppose the policy. Tailored messaging addressing the rationale behind R-rating policy should be directed towards communities based on age, race/ethnicity, household income, e-cigarette usage, and political ideologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12974,"journal":{"name":"Health Education & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"573-582"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981241239933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recently, multiple health organizations and advocacy groups have pushed for giving an R-rating for movies depicting tobacco imagery. This study examined several predictors of U.S. adults' opinion toward an R-rating policy for movies depicting cigarette smoking. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2020 cycle), for a nationally representative sample of 3,865 US adults (aged ≥ 18). The outcome variable was opinion toward an R-rating policy (support, neutral, and oppose) for movies depicting cigarette smoking. A weighted adjusted multinomial logistic regression analysis with comparisons of support versus oppose, support versus neutral, and neutral versus oppose was performed. About 48.2% of respondents were supportive of, 31.1% were neutral toward, and 20.7% were opposed to an R-rating policy. Adults aged 50 to 64 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.28, p = .008) and ≥65 years (aOR = 4.54, p <.001) (vs. 18-34 years) were more likely to support the R-rating policy than oppose it. Non-Hispanic Black respondents (vs. non-Hispanic Whites) were 1.74 times more likely to support than oppose the policy (aOR = 1.74, p = .04), whereas adults with a household annual income of US$75,000 or more (vs. <$20,000) and those with moderate (vs. liberal) political viewpoints were more likely to be neutral than oppose the policy. Former and current e-cigarette users (vs. never users) were less likely to support than oppose the policy. Tailored messaging addressing the rationale behind R-rating policy should be directed towards communities based on age, race/ethnicity, household income, e-cigarette usage, and political ideologies.

美国成年人对有吸烟行为的电影实行 R 级政策的预测因素。
最近,多个健康组织和权益团体都在推动将描写烟草形象的电影评为 R 级。本研究探讨了美国成年人对吸烟电影 R 级政策看法的几种预测因素。我们使用了健康信息全国趋势调查(2020 年周期)的数据,样本为具有全国代表性的 3865 名美国成年人(年龄≥ 18 岁)。结果变量是对描述吸烟电影的 R 级政策的看法(支持、中立和反对)。对支持与反对、支持与中立、中立与反对进行了加权调整多项式逻辑回归分析。约 48.2% 的受访者支持 R 级政策,31.1% 的受访者持中立态度,20.7% 的受访者持反对态度。年龄在 50 至 64 岁(调整后的几率比 [aOR] = 2.28,p = .008)和≥65 岁(aOR = 4.54,p = .04)的成人,以及家庭年收入在 75,000 美元或以上(vs.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Education & Behavior
Health Education & Behavior PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Health Education & Behavior is the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE). The journal publishes authoritative and practical information on critical health issues for a broad range of professionals interested in understanding factors associated with health behavior and health status, and strategies to improve social and behavioral health. The journal is interested in articles directed toward researchers and/or practitioners in health behavior and health education. Empirical research, case study, program evaluation, literature reviews, and articles discussing theories are regularly published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信