Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29920819›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2018

Smokers' risk perceptions and misperceptions of cigarettes, e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies.

Bill King, Enjelita Ndoen, Ron Borland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. An Experimental Study of Nicotine Warning Statements in E-cigarette Tweets.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  5. Exploring the Underlying Beliefs Shaping Perceptions of E-cigarette Harm Among a Convenience Sample of Adults in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Predictive Utility of Valuing the Future for Smoking Cessation: Findings from the ITC 4 Country Surveys.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Bill KingCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5789-1236
Enjelita NdoenSchool of Public Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Ron BorlandCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Translational Science Laboratory Shared ResourceP30CA138313 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI Jian Ouyang · 2009 to 2026
$42.7M
Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation Among Youth in the US, Canada, and England: Methods to Predict Uptake and Policy EfficacyP01CA200512 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI LEVY, DAVID THEODORE · 2016 to 2025
$25.3M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA200512NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

aimsTo identify the range and coherence of smokers and recent ex-smokers' general beliefs about the harms associated with smoking and the implications of these beliefs for their assessments of the relative harms and addictiveness of various nicotine containing products. DESIGN AND

methodsThe study consisted of 18 single participant interviews with current smokers or vapers (13 M, 5 F) and three focus groups (15 M, 14 F) with current smokers/vapers and recent quitters. Both individual interviews and focus groups included semi-structured discussions of how nicotine and cigarette smoke cause disease and addiction, and a structured task involving rating the relative harmfulness and addictiveness of 17 nicotine products against a reference, popular, cigarette.

resultsMost participants were able to give adequate accounts of what makes cigarette smoking harmful and addictive but this general knowledge was not consistently applied to making harmfulness and addictiveness judgements about specific products. Many participants applied simple affect-based heuristics to harmfulness and addictiveness judgments, even when they had apparently demonstrated more sophisticated knowledge earlier. Most used binary safe/dangerous thinking, with addictiveness and harmfulness strongly linked and a decoupling of satisfaction and addictiveness. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsMany smokers appear to have reasonable general knowledge of the risks of smoking but cannot reliably apply this knowledge to practical risk judgements. We need to rethink how we communicate with the public about the risks of smoking, and using other nicotine products, in ways that allow them to make more informed decisions about their smoking.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeTobacco ProductsTobacco Use Cessation DevicesAdolescentAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmokersSmokingYoung Adultaddictionharm reductionheuristicsrisk communicationtobacco smoking

Identifiers

PMID29920819
PMCPMC11337192

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.