Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25437268›Full record

ArticleAddictive behaviors2015

Patterns of combustible tobacco use in U.S. young adults and potential response to graphic cigarette health warning labels.

Andrea C Villanti, Jennifer L Pearson, Jennifer Cantrell, Donna M Vallone, Jessica M Rath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addictive behaviors, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Patterns of Nicotine and Tobacco Product Use in Youth and Young Adults in the United States, 2011-2015.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrea C VillantiThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: avillanti@legacyforhealth.org.
Jennifer L PearsonThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jennifer CantrellDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Research and Evaluation, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA.
Donna M ValloneDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Research and Evaluation, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA.
Jessica M RathDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Research and Evaluation, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100027C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the evolving landscape of tobacco use, it remains unclear how tobacco control efforts should be designed and promoted for maximum impact. The current study links the identification of latent classes of young adult combustible tobacco users with anticipated responses to graphic health warning labels (HWLs). Data were collected in January 2012 using an online address-based panel as part of the Legacy Young Adult Cohort Study, and analyses were conducted in 2013. Latent class analyses identified five groups of tobacco users in a national sample of 4,236 young adults aged 18-34years: (1) little cigar/cigarillo/bidi (LCC) and hookah users (4%); (2) nonusers, open to smoking (3%); (3) daily smokers who self-identify as "smokers" (11%); (4) nondaily, light smokers who self-identify as "social or occasional smokers" (9%); and (5) nonusers closed to smoking (73%). Of the nonusers closed to smoking, 23% may be better characterized as at risk for tobacco initiation. Results indicate differences in the potential effectiveness of HWLs across classes. Compared to the daily "smokers," LCC and hookah users (RRR=2.35) and nonusers closed to smoking (RRR=2.33) were more than twice as likely to report that new graphic HWLs would make them think about not smoking. This study supports the potential of graphic HWLs to prevent young nonusers from using tobacco products. It suggests that the extension of prominent HWLs to other tobacco products, including LCCs and hookah tobacco, may also serve a prevention function.

Indexed as

Product LabelingAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntentionMalePatient Education as TopicSmokingSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionTobacco Use Cessation DevicesUnited StatesYoung AdultModelsPopulation surveillanceSmoking/epidemiologyStatisticalTobacco

Identifiers

PMID25437268
PMCPMC7451244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.