Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26180523›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2015

Associations between perceptions of e-cigarette advertising and interest in product trial amongst US adult smokers and non-smokers: results from an internet-based pilot survey.

Danielle M Smith, Maansi Bansal-Travers, Richard J O'Connor, Maciej L Goniewicz, Andrew Hyland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cigarette Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes Use: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Youth Appealing E-Cigarette Advertising on Susceptibility to Use E-Cigarettes Among Youth.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2018
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

5 authors.

Danielle M SmithDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263 USA.
Maansi Bansal-TraversDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263 USA.
Richard J O'ConnorDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263 USA.
Maciej L GoniewiczDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263 USA.
Andrew HylandDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263 USA.

Funding

Two-Spirit Films in Indigenous Cancer HealthP30CA016056 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI Dean G. Tang · 1985 to 2026
$116.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have risen in popularity in the U.S. While recent studies have described the prevalence and demographics of e-cigarette users, few studies have evaluated the impact of advertising on perceptions and interest in trial. This pilot study was conducted to assess whether exposure to ads for e-cigarettes or a comparison product (snus), elicited differences in interest to try e-cigarettes between smokers and non-smokers.

methodsA web-based survey was completed by 600 respondents, aged 18-65, recruited from an internet panel in the U.S. Respondents answered questions assessing tobacco use, and then viewed nine magazine ads for Blu e-cigarettes or Camel snus, a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product, in random order. After viewing each ad, respondents were asked a series of questions about their perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and interest in trial. At the end, respondents were asked to choose a free sample product from the following options: an e-cigarette, smokeless tobacco (SLT), pack of cigarettes, or no product.

resultsAd receptivity scores did not appear to be influenced by ad theme; differences existed between smokers and non-smokers. Participants exposed to e-cigarette ads more frequently reported favorable product attitudes compared to participants exposed to snus ads. Cigarette smokers in the e-cigarette condition were more likely to report interest in trying e-cigarettes compared to non-smokers in that condition (p-value < 0.001). Six percent of non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette ads reported interest in trying e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes were the most popular product selected to sample (34 %), followed by cigarettes (8 %) and SLT (3 %); 331 respondents (55 %) chose no product. Participants randomized to the e-cigarette ad group were significantly more likely to choose an e-cigarette at product selection (p-value = 0.014). Within the e-cigarette condition, 71 % of smokers selected an e-cigarette at product selection, compared to 25 % of non-smokers; smoking status was significantly associated with sample product selection (p-value <0.001).

conclusionsThese findings suggest that exposure to e-cigarette ads may be associated with interest in e-cigarette trial, particularly among smokers. Continued exposure to advertising in magazines, on television, and at the point-of-sale may have an impact on willingness to receive promotional products or intention to try e-cigarettes.

Indexed as

AdvertisingElectronic cigarettesMarketingSmokingTobacco

Identifiers

PMID26180523
PMCPMC4502389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.