Themes
There was no consensus among participants about whether the video presented true information about the relationship between genetics and nicotine addiction and lung cancer (forthcoming manuscript). In every group, at least one participant—and sometimes several participants—made a statement suggesting that he or she was skeptical of the validity of the information. In two of the African American groups, at least one participant had such strong doubts that they had difficulty answering questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of providing genetic risk information to smokers. Participants were permitted several minutes to discuss their reasons for disbelieving the information. Then, for the purpose of generating conversation and moving the focus groups forward, participants were asked to suspend their disbelief and imagine that the information was true.
Six themes emerged that addressed how research about the smoking-genetics link might be utilized for tobacco control purposes. The themes are described in detail in each of the five subsections below. Importantly, no racial or educational differences emerged about any of the tobacco control themes described below.
Improved but potentially costly therapies
Eight of the thirteen (62%) groups mentioned that the discovery of a genetic basis for nicotine addiction and lung cancer might lead to the development of novel treatments or preventive agents. One possibility was to use genetic information to identify the optimal pharmaceutical therapy for a given patient:
[HW] Man 1: “…if they [the researchers] knew more about where that’s [nicotine] affecting their brain, they [the researchers] can…pinpoint [a] more effective drug or treatment perhaps…you can say, ‘Well, we have this drug now to target those people with this gene…’”
Participants also mentioned gene therapy and genetic manipulation:
[LW] Man 2: “…there’s a ton of things that…could be started to prevent…a child from getting [addicted]…even just eliminating it altogether to where something, you know, erases that particular part of genealogy…”
However, the possible cost of such treatments was a concern:
[LA] Woman 1: “…Do you all know if we can alter the gene? Is there something we could do to change it maybe?
Woman 2 responds: “You got to pay for everything.”
As these quotes demonstrate, participants saw the potential for genomics research findings to be used in complex ways to treat or prevent nicotine addiction in adults and children. Yet, statements made by some participants suggest that the cost of such treatments may prohibit access for people without sufficient means.
Personalized genetic testing
The potential of personalized genetic testing for smokers arose in all 13 (100%) groups. Participants identified several avenues by which providing genetic test results may or may not affect behavior. However, opinions differed about the extent to which providing test results would motivate people to quit smoking.
[LA] Woman 2: “It would make a difference to me seriously…If I went to the doctor and they said, oh, you got the “double-whammy gene” [quoted from video] for smoking…I’ll be like oh really, I’m going to try harder to quit smoking.”
[HA] Woman 1, in response to moderator question about quitting after genetic testing: “I don’t think so. It has to take something to happen for you to want to…quit.”
In contrast, one participant saw the potential utility of personal genetic testing for motivating smoking cessation, but he was less confident in his ability to put the information into action:
[HW] Man 4: “If I got screened tomorrow and they told me that I had this, I don’t know. I can’t say….I had the threat of losing this tooth, and was able to quit…but once I was healthy, went right back to it.”
Other participants emphasized the idea that providing personalized test results to long-established smokers would be useless unless therapies were available to help them quit:
[LW] Woman 5: “If you come to me tellin’ me this [points to paper summary of video]…I will roll my cigarette in that paper. But if you tell me, ‘Hey, but we got this stuff here. If you drink that, then your chances get 20% better’…then I might consider doing somethin’ with that information.”
These quotes illustrate the complex and multilevel nature of the process by which the provision of personalized genomic testing may or may not influence cessation. The extent to which the information is motivating is highly dependent on the individual. However, the sheer difficulty of quitting raises concerns even in motivated smokers about whether they will be able to transform their intentions into successful actions. Nevertheless, many participants indicated that they would more open to testing if effective treatments were available.
Smoking prevention in youth
The potential to use the information to discourage children and adolescents from beginning to smoke was mentioned in 12 of the 13 (92%) groups. However, like personal genetic testing, participants held widely divergent views about its effectiveness:
[LA] Woman 4: “I think [knowing about the gene will make it] harder to start [smoking] because you’re going to get lung cancer.” …
Man 2 responds: “I expect the kids…might get it [be positively affected by the information] before the grownups will.”
Whereas some participants believed that providing young people with their personal genetic test results might be an effective deterrent to smoking, others disagreed by highlighting existing public health messaging surrounding tobacco use:
[HA] Man 3: “They test you early on…and you know that you have it, so that you have a—that with this gene comes a certain death percentage already if you start smoking…they can basically put it in your hands whether you want to start smoking or not.”
Man 1 responds: “We had, ‘it’ll stunt your growth, it’ll give you lung cancer’ and all… it didn’t stop us then. So what’s the difference?”
The possibility that providing information to young people might backfire and increase their susceptibility to experimenting with smoking also arose:
[LW] Man 2: “…I’m not really skeptical, but… what’s the first thing a kid does when you tell him not to do something?”
Some participants were relatively optimistic about the potential of genetic testing to prevent tobacco use in young people, especially in comparison to adults, but others disagreed. Those who were optimistic discussed the idea of young people being able to choose to smoke or not based on having as much information as possible, but others indicated that knowledge did not motivate their smoking behavior. There were also concerns about the information potentially backfiring.
Using the mass media to motivate smokers to quit by disseminating the study findings arose in only four (31%) groups, and then only in response to the moderator’s direct inquiry. Opinions tended to be highly negative:
[LA] Moderator: “If that were on TV right now…”
Man 2 responds: “I think it would be a waste of advertisement.”
[HA] Moderator: “What would the reaction be of…folks if they see this?”
Man 2 responds: I see them turning the TV off. <laughs>
In contrast to these definitive rejections of the information, a few participants believed that responses to mass media-based information would depend on individual situations:
[LW] Woman 3: “I think yes and no… some people will be like, ‘Screw it, I’ve been smokin’ for 42 years, what’s the point?’ And… some people will be like, ‘You know what, my first cigarette was just like a year and a half ago. Let’s do this.’ You know?”
Participants indicated that there would be considerable rejection of mass media-based educational campaigns centered on the study’s findings. This rejection was thought to take both overt actions such as turning the television off, and more cognitively-based rejection. Potential acceptance of the information was voiced infrequently.
“We know” smoking is hazardous
Those participants who were skeptical about using genetic information to discourage smoking emphasized that adolescents and smokers already know that smoking is hazardous, yet that knowledge does not affect behavior. These points were raised in ten (77%) of the groups. Some comments focused on school-based tobacco prevention efforts:
[HA] Woman 3: “And it’s not that we don’t know what the consequences of smoking are. You know…when I was in high school…they showed us this movie about smoking, and how your lungs look, and all that…You just say, ‘Okay, I saw that, and…intellectually, I understand.’ But I would choose to smoke.”
Some participants believed that knowledge about the hazardous effects of tobacco was universal, in part due to mass media campaigns. Thus, informing people about the genetic link to nicotine addiction and lung cancer would be superfluous:
[LA] Woman 2: It ain’t going to help nothing because it’s already a known fact that these bad boys are disgusting. It’s not going to help because it’s all over the whole world. Do not smoke…you’re gonna be toe-up [dead]. And they even have commercials and everything.”
Other participants placed their existing knowledge of the hazardous effects in the context of others confronting them about their smoking behavior. This was distressing.
[HW] Woman 1: “Oh my gosh! My daughter came home with [tobacco education material]. That’s a killer, you know?”
Woman 3 responds: “Because we know…We’re gonna die, because we’re smoking. So you don’t have to put it in our face. And the stupid young kids that start smoking, they’re not sitting down watching this stuff.” [angry tone of voice]
The vast majority of participants were well aware that smoking is harmful to health. This awareness came from various sources, including school-based prevention efforts and mass media campaigns that included elements that were highly graphic and generated disgust. Participants were also confronted about the hazards of smoking by loved ones. In that context, relatively emotionally pallid information about a genetic basis for nicotine addiction and lung cancer was insufficiently motivating. Nevertheless, some participants voiced frustration at smoking initiation among young people.
Personal agency and motivation
Although opinions diverged widely about the utility of information about the genetic basis for nicotine addiction, the data suggested that, for many participants, the motivational quality of the information was associated with participants’ beliefs about the importance of smoking and smoking cessation as conscious choices. It should be noted that the specific question of the extent to which genetic risk information might be motivating was contingent on participants either believing the information provided or suspending their disbelief. Participants who disbelieved the information cited the importance of personal agency as a reason for their disbelief (data not shown).
Like others, this participant emphasized the ability of the information to help novice smokers decide to quit before addiction becomes too severe:
[HW] Man 3: “If…you had that information up front [before addiction sets in]…you can make it a clear decision…with that information, say “Okay. I’m not—since I’m more susceptible to that, I’m gonna take extra effort not to be caught up in it.”
Other participants focused on the ability of the information to increase willpower when quitting:
[LA] Woman 3: “It [the information] help you say, hey, the gene is not going to control me, I’m going to control it…put my foot down and stomp on it.”
Participants who reported they would be less motivated by the information made statements that were either less focused on personal agency, or made statements that indicated a lack of agency:
[LW] Man 2: “I didn’t really realize it was that—the 80 percent. I mean, both my parents died of cancer and I’m probably right in the top of that number, but you know, as far as quittin’ goes…it just doesn’t even seem like an option…I mean, I, I tried it just doesn’t happen…and I’ve accepted the fact that it’s not gonna happen.”
Although there was near universal agreement that smoking initiation and cessation were conscious choices (data not shown), the role of personal agency in the ability of genetic information to motivate quitting was more varied. Specifically, participants who discussed the motivational value of the information in terms that included agentic statements indicated that the information was more motivating than participants who did not use agentic statements.