ArticleTobacco regulatory science2018
Testing a Brief Web-based Intervention to Increase Recognition of Tobacco Constituents.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eye tracking applied to tobacco smoking: current directions and future perspectives.Journal of eye movement research · 2022Article
- A Vision for Eye-tracking Research in Tobacco Regulatory Science.Tobacco regulatory science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe examined website formats to increase smokers' recognition of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in cigarettes.
methodsAdult, daily smokers (N = 279) were randomized to view a brief, single-page study website showing HPHC names and uses. The intervention site was tailored + interactive, labeled by cigarette brand/subbrand showing color imagery and pop-up boxes; the generic + static website (control) was unbranded in greyscale. Eye tracking equipment measured attention (dwell time) to precise website features. Linear regression analyses compared attention to HPHC descriptions and the correct recognition of 15 HPHC chemicals. A randomly selected sub-sample (N = 30) of participants qualitatively rated website usability.
resultsDespite spending less dwell time on the HPHC text and entire website, adult smokers who viewed the generic + static website had greater improvement in HPHC recognition compared to the tailored + interactive website (4.6 vs 3.6; p = .02); this finding contrasts with current literature on tailoring and interactivity. Both websites were rated highly on ease-of-use and readability.
conclusionsBasic formats and narrative HPHC Web-based content attracted less visual attention, yet increased recognition of these chemicals in cigarettes, compared to brand-tailored, interactive web-based content.
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.