Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29097588›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2018

The impact of flavour, device type and warning messages on youth preferences for electronic nicotine delivery systems: evidence from an online discrete choice experiment.

Ce Shang, Jidong Huang, Frank J Chaloupka, Sherry L Emery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Identifying Promising Themes for Adolescent Vaping Warnings: A National Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Preventive medicine reports · 2026
    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.

Ce ShangHealth Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jidong HuangSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Frank J ChaloupkaHealth Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sherry L EmeryHealth Media Collaboratory, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

The Science of Decision Making: Connecting People and PolicyP50DA036128 · NIDA · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ERIKSEN, MICHAEL PAUL · 2013 to 2018
$19.4M
UPENN TCORS: Tobacco Product Messaging in a Complex Communication EnvironmentP50CA179546 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HORNIK, ROBERT C., LERMAN, CARYN · 2013 to 2017
$18.7M
Tobacco Control in a Rapidly Changing Media EnvironmentU01CA154254 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI EMERY, SHERRY L · 2011 to 2015
$7.7M
Monitoring and Assessing the Impact of Tax and Price Policies on US Tobacco UseU01CA154248 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI CHALOUPKA, FRANK JOSEPH · 2011 to 2015
$6.6M
US and International Evidence on Factors Leading to Tax Avoidance and Evasion and Their Impact on Drinking Behaviors and ConsequencesK99AA024810 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI SHANG, CE · 2016 to 2017
$325k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA179546NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154248NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154254NIAAA NIH HHS K99 AA024810NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA036128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the impact of flavour, device type and health warning messages on youth preference for electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and to provide evidence and data to inform the Food and Drug Administration's potential regulatory actions on ENDS.

designAn online discrete choice experiment was conducted in September 2015. Each participant was given nine choice sets and asked to choose one out of two alternative ENDS products, with varying characteristics in three attributes (flavour, device type and warning message). The impact of the attributes on the probability of choosing ENDS was analysed using conditional and nested logit regressions, controlling for individual sociodemographic characteristics and current smoking status. SETTING AND

participantsA general population sample of 515 participants (50 ever-users and 465 never-users of ENDS) aged 14-17 years were recruited to complete the experiment using an online panel.

resultsFruit/sweets/beverage flavours significantly increase the probability of choosing ENDS among youth (p<0.01 for never-users and <0.1 for ever-users) and flavour has the most pronounced impact among three attributes. Among never-users, menthol flavour also increases (p<0.05) the probability of choosing ENDS compared with tobacco flavour. Vaping devices that are modifiable, compared with cigarette-like e-cigarettes, increase (p<0.05) the probability of choosing ENDS among adolescent never-users. Warning messages reduce (p<0.01) the probability of choosing ENDS among never-users. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Restricting fruit/sweets/beverage flavours in ENDS, regulating modifiable vaping devices and adopting strong health warning messages may reduce the uptake of ENDS among youth.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorFlavoring AgentsProduct LabelingAdolescentElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansInternetMaleFlavoring Agentselectronic nicotine delivery devicespackaging and labellingpreventionpriority/special populationspublic policy

Identifiers

PMID29097588
PMCPMC7224551

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.