ArticleJournal of health communication2016
Examining Interpretations of Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Among U.S. Youth and Adults.
Article in Journal of health communication, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Pictorial Health Warnings on Cognitive, Affective, and Smoking Behavior: A Mixed Methods Study in Four Cities in Indonesia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Narrative Voice Matters! Improving Smoking Prevention with Testimonial Messages through Identification and Cognitive Processes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Adolescent Attention to Disgust Visuals in Cigarette Graphic Warning Labels.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have examined how diverse populations interpret warning labels. This study examined interpretations of 9 graphic cigarette warning labels (image plus text) proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration among a convenience sample of youth (ages 13-17) and adults (18+) across the United States. Participants (N = 1,571) completed a cross-sectional survey. Participants were asked to select 1 of 3 plausible interpretations (1 preferred vs. 2 alternative) created by the research team about the particular consequence of smoking addressed in each warning label. Participants also rated each label for novelty, counterarguing, perceived effectiveness, and harm. Smokers reported their thoughts of quitting, self-efficacy, and motivation to quit. Although at least 70% of the sample chose the preferred interpretation for 7 of 9 labels, only 13% of participants chose all 9 preferred interpretations. The odds of selecting the preferred interpretation were lower among African Americans, among those with less education, and for labels perceived as being more novel. Smokers reported greater counterarguing and less perceived effectiveness and harms than nonsmokers, but results were not consistent across all labels and interpretations. The alternative interpretations of cigarette warning labels were associated with lower perceived effectiveness and lower perceived harms of smoking, both of which are important for motivating quit attempts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.