Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31516438›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2018

Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach.

Ji-Eun Hwang, Yu-Seon Yang, Yu-Mi Oh, Seon-Young Lee, Joung-Eun Lee, Sung-Il Cho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of Different Graphic Health Warning Types on the Intention to Quit Smoking.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Ji-Eun HwangDepartment of Public Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yu-Seon YangKorea Health Promotion Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yu-Mi OhKorea Health Promotion Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seon-Young LeeGyeonggi Infectious Disease Control Center, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Joung-Eun LeeKorea Health Promotion Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sung-Il ChoDepartment of Public Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in South Korea, the position of GHWLs has become a contested issue. The pro-tobacco industry group argued that the warnings should be placed at the bottom of cigarette packs because evidence for the effectiveness of the upper position was insufficient. Therefore, this study investigated whether the position of the GHWL affects eye movement.

methodsParticipants (30 daily smokers and 24 non-smokers) were shown six cigarette packs in random order with different position combinations (top, middle, bottom) and image concepts (skin aging, toxic constituents). Participants' eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking equipment to measure visual fixation duration in milliseconds (ms).

resultsParticipants visually fixated longer on the health warning area than on the tobacco branding area (p<0.05). Mean fixation duration on the health warning area was significantly longer at the top or middle positions compared to the bottom, by 28% (mean difference=340 ms, p=0.006) and by 30% (mean difference=368 ms, p=0.002), respectively. By contrast, mean fixation duration on the branding area was longer with the warning at the bottom compared to top or middle positions by 25% and 33%, with mean differences of 157 ms (p=0.100) and 212 ms (p=0.026), respectively. No significant difference in fixation time was observed between the top and middle positions (p>0.05).

conclusionsThe duration of visual fixation on GHWLs was longer when they were displayed at the top and middle, rather than at the bottom. Therefore, GHWLs should be positioned from the top to the middle of the tobacco package.

Indexed as

eye trackingFCTCgraphic health warning labeltobacco control

Identifiers

PMID31516438
PMCPMC6659495

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.