Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25557128›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2015

Effect of warning statements in e-cigarette advertisements: an experiment with young adults in the United States.

Ashley Sanders-Jackson, Nina C Schleicher, Stephen P Fortmann, Lisa Henriksen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Second Generation Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Vape Pen Exposure Generalizes as a Smoking Cue.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2018
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Ashley Sanders-JacksonStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Nina C SchleicherStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Stephen P FortmannStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1327-9341
Lisa HenriksenStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION TRAINING PROGRAMT32HL007034 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GARDNER, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2020
$8.7M
POLICY STUDIES ON LIMITING TOBACCO MARKETING TO YOUTHR01CA067850 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HENRIKSEN, LISA ANNE · 1997 to 2018
$5.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA067850NCI NIH HHS R01-CA067850NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007034NHLBI NIH HHS T32-HL007034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThis on-line experiment examined whether the addition of ingredient- or industry-themed warning statements in television advertisements for e-cigarettes would affect young adults' craving for and risk perceptions of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, as well as intent to purchase e-cigarettes.

designAdvertisements for two leading e-cigarette brands were edited to contain a warning statement about product ingredients or about the tobacco industry. Participants were assigned randomly to one of eight treatments or one of two brand-specific control conditions without any warning statement.

participantsYoung adults (n=900, aged 18-34 years) in a web panel were recruited from three groups: recent e-cigarette users, current smokers who used combustible cigarettes exclusively and non-users of either product. MEASUREMENTS: Craving and risk perceptions (addictiveness, harmful to health in general, harmful to others) were measured separately for e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. The Juster scale measured intention to purchase e-cigarettes.

findingsExposure to both types of warnings was associated with lower craving for e-cigarettes among e-cigarette users and smokers who experienced any craving (P<0.01) and lower intention to purchase among all participants (P<0.001). Only exposure to ingredient-themed warnings was associated with lower craving for combustible cigarettes (P<0.05). Participants who saw industry-themed warnings reported greater perceptions of general harm (P<0.001), but also rated e-cigarettes as less addictive than the control conditions (P<0.05).

conclusionThe addition of ingredient- or industry-themed warning statements to e-cigarette television advertising similarly reduces craving and purchase intent for e-cigarettes, but has inconsistent effects on perceived risks.

Indexed as

AdvertisingAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthCravingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHealth PromotionHumansIntentionPerceptionRisk AssessmentSmokingTelevisionUnited StatesYoung AdultAdvertisingcravinge-cigarettesintention to purchaseperceived riskwarning labels

Identifiers

PMID25557128
PMCPMC5113715

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.