Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28622008›Full record

ArticleHealth communication2018

Sharing Tobacco and E-Cigarette Information: Predicting its Occurrence and Valence among Youth and Young Adults.

Michelle Jeong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health communication, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Michelle Jeonga Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

UPENN TCORS: Tobacco Product Messaging in a Complex Communication EnvironmentP50CA179546 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HORNIK, ROBERT C. · 2013 to 2017
$18.7M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA179546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While interpersonal communication has been shown to influence smoking-related outcomes, mostly in the context of interventions, there is not much research showing what drives young people to talk about tobacco or e-cigarettes. Additionally, the changing media environment calls for research that expands the scope of what is included as interpersonal communication to include not just conversations but also online forms of communicating information. This study puts forth sharing as such a concept, and examines its prevalence and predictors in the context of tobacco and e-cigarette information. Using a nationally representative rolling cross-sectional (N = 9,115) and recontact (N = 2,413) survey of 13-25-year olds, this study found that most young people shared negatively about tobacco (56% of 1,514 tobacco sharers at Time 1) and mixed information about e-cigarettes (41% of 968 e-cigarette sharers). Sharing occurrence was predicted by topical relevance and recent exposure to information, while pro-tobacco and pro-e-cigarette sharing (compared to no sharing) were predicted by relevance, and descriptive and injunctive norms. Significant moderation analyses showed that perceived norms undermined the effect of relevance on the valence in which one shared about tobacco and e-cigarettes. These findings provide a foundation upon which to build subsequent research on the impact of sharing, which could help inform future tobacco and e-cigarette control efforts.

Indexed as

Tobacco ProductsAdultCigarette SmokingCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMalePrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28622008
PMCPMC6009822

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.