Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30158209›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2019

Waterpipe tobacco package warning exposure's impact on risk perceptions and use among young adults in the USA: a longitudinal analysis of the population assessment of tobacco and health study.

Jessica L King, Beth A Reboussin, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross, Erin L Sutfin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Visual Attention to Health Warning Labels on Waterpipe Venue Menus in Immersive Virtual Reality.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica L KingDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Beth A ReboussinDepartment of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Jennifer Cornacchione RossDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Erin L SutfinDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Wake Forest University · US

Funding

Training & Education Program p294-308P50CA180907 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RIBISL, KURT M. · 2013 to 2017
$20.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated waterpipe tobacco warnings were not required until August 2018, some waterpipe tobacco packaging (WTP) sold in the USA, contained warnings prior to this date. We examined the prevalence of WTP warning exposure and whether exposure influenced risk perceptions or use among young adult (aged 18-24 years) current waterpipe users.

methodsWe used data from waves 1 (2013-2014) and 2 (2014-2015) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a nationally representative longitudinal study of US adults and youth. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with wave 1 warning exposure, and whether wave 1 WTP warning exposure predicted wave 2 relative risk perceptions and waterpipe use.

resultsMore than one-third of our sample (35.9%, 95% CI 33.5 to 38.4) reported past-month WTP warning exposure. Exposure was higher among males (adjusted OR (AOR)=1.34, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.72), those who usually do not share the waterpipe (AOR=3.10, 95% CI 1.45 to 6.60), those who purchased waterpipe tobacco (AOR=1.73, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.34), and those with a regular brand (AOR=1.84, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.68). Those exposed to WTP warnings at wave 1 were more likely than those not exposed to perceive waterpipe tobacco to be as or more harmful than cigarettes at wave 2 (AOR=1.35, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.78). There was no association between wave 1 WTP exposure and wave 2 waterpipe use.

conclusionsMore than one-third of US young adult current waterpipe users reported WTP warning exposure prior to FDA-mandated warning implementation. Findings suggest the mandated warning may result in high exposure among users; it will be critical to assess exposure's impact on risk perceptions and behaviour after FDA-mandated warnings are implemented.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeTobacco, WaterpipeAdolescentFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleProduct LabelingProduct PackagingSmoking Water PipesYoung Adultnon-cigarette tobacco productspackaging and labellingpublic policy

Identifiers

PMID30158209
PMCPMC6395506
OpenAlexW2889004590

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.