Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30241527›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2018

Development and validation of a new instrument to measure perceived risks associated with the use of tobacco and nicotine-containing products.

Stefan Cano, Christelle Chrea, Thomas Salzberger, Thomas Alfieri, Gerard Emilien, Nelly Mainy, Antonio Ramazzotti, Frank Lüdicke, Rolf Weitkunat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Developing and Validating Measures of Absolute and Relative E-Cigarette Product Risk Perceptions: Single Items Can Be Surprisingly Comprehensive.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Risk perception ofSSM - population health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Stefan CanoModus Outcomes, Spirella Building, Letchworth Garden City, SG6 4ET, UK.
Christelle ChreaPhilip Morris Products S.A, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Thomas SalzbergerInstitute for Statistics and Mathematics, Institute for Marketing Management, University of Economics and Business (WU Wien), Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020, Vienna, Austria. Thomas.Salzberger@wu.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7753-9798
Thomas AlfieriCovance Market Access Inc, 10300 Campus Point Drive, Suite 225, San Diego, CA, 92121-1511, USA.
Gerard EmilienPhilip Morris Products S.A, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Nelly MainyPhilip Morris Products S.A, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Antonio RamazzottiPhilip Morris International Management S.A, Avenue de Rhodanie 50, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Frank LüdickePhilip Morris Products S.A, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Rolf WeitkunatPhilip Morris Products S.A, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaking tobacco products associated with lower risks available to smokers who would otherwise continue smoking is recognized as an important strategy towards addressing smoking-related harm. Predicting use behavior is an important major component of product risk assessment. In this context, risk perception is a possible factor driving tobacco product uptake and use. As prior to market launch real-world actual product use cannot be observed, assessing risk perception can provide predictive information. Considering the lack of suitable validated self-report instruments, the development of a new instrument was undertaken to quantify perceived risks of tobacco and nicotine-containing products by adult smokers, former smokers and never-smokers.

methodsInitial items were constructed based on a literature review, focus groups and expert opinion. Data for scale formation and assessment were obtained through two successive US-based web surveys (n = 2020 and 1640 completers, respectively). Psychometric evaluation was based on Rasch Measurement Theory and Classical Test Theory.

resultsPsychometric evaluation supported the formation of an 18-item Perceived Health Risk scale and a 7-item Perceived Addiction Risk scale: item response option thresholds were ordered correctly for all items; item locations in each scale were spread out (coverage range 75-87%); scale reliability was supported by high person separation indices > 0.93, Cronbach's alpha > 0.98 and Corrected Item-Total Correlations > 0.88; and no differential item functioning was present. Construct validity evaluations met expectations through inter-scale correlations and findings from known-group comparisons.

conclusionsThe Perceived Risk Instrument is a psychometrically robust instrument applicable for general and personal risk perception measurement, for use in different types of products (including cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, potential Modified Risk Tobacco Products), and for different smoking status groups (i.e., current smokers with and without intention to quit, former smokers, never smokers).

Indexed as

NicotinePerceptionRisk AssessmentSelf ReportTobacco ProductsAdolescentAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSmokingNicotineModified risk tobacco productsPsychometricsPublic healthRisk perception

Identifiers

PMID30241527
PMCPMC6151038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.