ArticleTobacco regulatory science2019
The RICO Verdict and Corrective Statements: Catalysts for Policy Change?
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 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.
- Inequities in the compliance of court-ordered point-of-sale tobacco industry corrective statements, USA.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Tobacco-control policy support among people from low socioeconomic positions in Massachusetts.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Combatting tobacco industry lobbyists in public health.Tobacco induced diseases · 2023Article
- Tobacco control in the United States: Failure to protect the right to health.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA federal court ruled tobacco companies violated racketeering laws and ordered them to publish corrective statements. This study assesses effects of exposure to the statements and related court findings on attitudes toward tobacco-related policies and tobacco company influences on policymaking.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of US adults (N = 2010) prior to publication of the statements. Participants were randomly assigned to the "unexposed" group (N = 1004), which answered attitude questions
resultsThe exposed group was less likely to think lawmakers should trust tobacco companies as much as other companies (β = -.24, p < .001) or that lawmakers should trust tobacco company lobbyists to provide accurate information (β = -.17, p = .019), compared to the unexposed group. The exposed group also was more likely to support requiring graphic warning labels (β = .15, p = .014) and point-of-sale quitline signs (β = .13, p = .028).
conclusionsExposure to the statements and court findings may aid tobacco industry denormalization and tobacco-related policy initiatives.
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.