ArticleTobacco induced diseases2018
Pro-smoking responses and attitudes due to point-of-sale tobacco displays in never smokers: A cross-sectional study in Hong Kong.
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNever smokers' responses to tobacco control policy are often overshadowed by the opposition from smokers and tobacco industry during policy advocacy and legislation. Very few studies have examined never smokers' exposure to point-of-sale (POS) tobacco displays and their effects. Therefore, we investigated the exposure, pro-smoking responses due to and attitudes towards such displays in never smokers in Hong Kong.
methodsWe conducted two-stage, randomized cross-sectional telephone-based surveys in 2015 and 2016 of 1833 never-smoking adults. They were asked how often they noticed POS displays in the past 30 days (often, sometimes, never), whether they found POS displays attractive, felt encouraged to smoke, perceived POS displays as advertisements, and if they supported banning them. The distributions of the outcomes were analyzed by descriptive statistics with weighting to the general population. Risk ratios (RR) from Poisson regression models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics were used to analyze the associations.
resultsOur results showed that, in never smokers, the younger were more likely to often notice POS displays (RR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.72-0.89, p<0.01). Finding POS displays attractive was associated with primary (RR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.51-4.22, p<0.01) and secondary education (RR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.16- 2.44, p=0.01) versus tertiary education. Often noticing displays was associated with perceived attractiveness (RR=1.90, 95% CI: 1.32-2.75, p<0.01). The positive association between often noticing displays and being encouraged to smoke was marginally significant (RR=4.05, 95% CI: 0.98-16.85, p=0.054). Respondents who often noticed POS displays (RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.98, p=0.02) and did not perceive them as advertisements (RR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.98, p<0.01) showed less support on banning them than those who did not notice them.
conclusionsFrequent exposure to POS displays was associated with greater perceived attractiveness and lower support for banning them. A total ban on POS displays is needed to eliminate the advertising and normalization effect of POS displays.
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.