Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27410753›Full record

ArticleJournal of health communication2016

Examining Interpretations of Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Among U.S. Youth and Adults.

Amy McQueen, Erika A Waters, Kimberly A Kaphingst, Charlene A Caburnay, Vetta L Sanders Thompson, Sonia Boyum, Matthew W Kreuter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Adolescent Attention to Disgust Visuals in Cigarette Graphic Warning Labels.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2019
    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

7 authors.

Amy McQueena Division of General Medical Sciences, School of Medicine , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Erika A Watersc Division of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Kimberly A Kaphingstd Department of Communication , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , Utah , USA.
Charlene A Caburnayb Health Communication Research Laboratory, School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Vetta L Sanders Thompsonb Health Communication Research Laboratory, School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Sonia Boyumb Health Communication Research Laboratory, School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Matthew W Kreuterb Health Communication Research Laboratory, School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.

Funding

Training / Career DevelopmentP50CA095815 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KREUTER, MATTHEW W. · 2003 to 2012
$20.4M
Training ProgramU54CA153460 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2010 to 2015
$5.3M
USEABILITY TESTING OF A WEB-BASED TOOL TO HELP SMOKERS SELECT CESSATION AIDSR03CA175571 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MCQUEEN, AMY · 2013 to 2014
$152k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA095815NCI NIH HHS R03 CA175571NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153460
6 · The paper itself

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

Smoking PreventionAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMotivationProduct LabelingSelf EfficacySmokingSmoking CessationTobacco ProductsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27410753
PMCPMC8193916

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.