Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30239948›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2019

Item Development and Performance of Tobacco Product and Regulation Perception Items for the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Emily B Peterson, David B Portnoy, Kelly D Blake, Gordon Willis, Katy Trundle, Andrew R Caporaso, Aaron Maitland, Annette R Kaufman

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of Survey Item Wording and Response Options on Prevalence of Beliefs About Nicotine Causing Cancer: A Randomized Survey Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Adolescents' Understanding of Smoking and Vaping Risk Language: Cognitive Interviews to Inform Scale Development.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily B PetersonDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
David B PortnoyCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
Kelly D BlakeDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Gordon WillisDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Katy TrundleWestat, Rockville, MD.
Andrew R CaporasoWestat, Rockville, MD.
Aaron MaitlandWestat, Rockville, MD.
Annette R KaufmanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
National Cancer Institute · USWestat (United States) · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmerging tobacco products have become increasingly popular, and the US Food and Drug Administration extended its authority to all products meeting the definition of a tobacco product in 2016. These changes may lead to shifts in public perceptions about tobacco products and regulation, and national surveys are attempting to assess these perceptions at the population level. This article describes the item development and cognitive interviewing of the tobacco product and regulation perception items included in two tobacco-focused cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-FDA), referred to as HINTS-FDA.

methodsCognitive interviewing was used to investigate how respondents comprehended and responded to tobacco product and regulation perception items. Adult participants (n = 20) were selected purposively to oversample current tobacco users and were interviewed in two iterative rounds. Weighted descriptive statistics from the fielded HINTS-FDA surveys (N = 5474) were also calculated.

resultsItems were generally interpreted as intended, and participants meaningfully discriminated between tobacco products when assessing addiction perceptions. Response selection issues involved inconsistent reporting among participants with little knowledge or ambivalent opinions about either government regulation or tobacco products and ingredients, which resolved when a "don't know" response option was included in the survey. The fielded survey found that a non-negligible proportion of the population do not have clear perceptions of emerging tobacco products or government regulation.

conclusionsA "don't know" response option is helpful for items assessing many emerging tobacco products but presents several analytic challenges that should be carefully considered. Multiple items assessing specific tobacco product and regulation perception items are warranted in future surveys. IMPLICATIONS: The findings from this study can serve as a foundation for future surveys that assess constructs related to emerging tobacco products, harm perceptions across multiple tobacco products, and tobacco-related government regulatory activities. The data provide unique insight into item-specific motivation for selecting a "don't know" response option for tobacco survey items.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSurveys and QuestionnairesGovernment RegulationHumansTobacco ProductsTobacco Use DisorderUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30239948
PMCPMC6941702
OpenAlexW2890055410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.