From science to policy: The experimental study used to evaluate proposed corrective statements in US vs. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered all parties in US vs. Philip Morris USA, Inc. to propose text for corrective statements on five topics about which the defendant tobacco companies had engaged in deliberate fraud and deception. The statements will be disseminated in newspapers and through television, pack onserts, corporate websites, and possibly point-of-sale. The Court issued the final text for the statements November 27, 2012. METHODS: We conducted an experimental study to evaluate potential corrective statements in both English and Spanish with a nationally representative sample of adults and teens on cognitive outcomes such as knowledge, beliefs, confusion, trust, and future beliefs; attributes such as attention and clarity; and smoking urges and behavioral intentions in current and former smokers. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to model the predicted probability that exposure to statements was associated with outcomes of interest. Tests for effect modification explored whether statements may produce differential effects based on smoking status, income, age, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Across nearly all topic areas, statements proposed by public-health Intervenors and NCI outperformed industry-proposed statements, both compared to control condition and ranked against all statements under study. Tests of effect modification revealed no broad patterns of differential effects by smoking status, income, age, or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Corrective statements represent an important opportunity for the public better to appreciate the health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure, and to be less likely to be misled by future tobacco industry deceptions and misstatements.