Trial reportTobacco control2019
Adolescent males' responses to blu's fake warnings.
Trial report in Tobacco control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual attention to blu's parody warnings and the FDA's warning on e-cigarette advertisements.Addictive behaviors · 2022Article
- Associations between Cognitive and Affective Responses to Tobacco Advertisements and Tobacco Use Incidence: A Four-Year Prospective Study among Adolescent Boys.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Waterpipe Warning Placement and Risk Perceptions: An Eye Tracking Study.American journal of health behavior · 2021Article
- People in E-Cigarette Ads Attract More Attention: An Eye-Tracking Study.Tobacco regulatory science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBlu's 'Something Better' advertising campaign ran in popular print magazines in 2017. The campaign included advertisements with fake warnings conveying positive messages, which mimicked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s warning requirements for electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) advertisements that took effect in 2018. We report adolescent males' recall of these fake warnings and how exposure to fake warnings affected recall of other advertisement components, including the actual warning or health risks, brand and product.
methodsOhio males ages 12-19 years (N = 775; 73.8 % white non-Hispanic) were randomly assigned to view an e-cigarette advertisement with or without a fake warning. Afterward, they were asked what they remembered most about the advertisement. Responses were qualitatively coded. Statistical analyses included survey-weighted descriptive statistics and logistic regression.
resultsOf participants who viewed an e-cigarette advertisement with a fake warning, 27.0 % reported the fake warning was what they remembered most, and 18.8 % repeated the fake warning message. Participants viewing advertisements with a fake warning had lower odds of recalling the actual warning or health risks (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) or brand (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.85), compared with participants viewing other e-cigarette advertisements.
conclusionsAdolescents viewing an advertisement with a fake warning were less likely to recall the advertisement's actual warning or health risks. Although e-cigarette advertisements now carry large FDA-mandated warnings, this tactic could be used for cigarette advertisements that continue to carry small warnings in the USA. Findings underscore the necessity of tobacco advertisement surveillance and study of advertisements' effects on adolescents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.