Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32595160›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Protocol for creating new warnings on cigarette packs and evaluating their efficacy in a randomised experimental setting.

Christian Ben Lakhdar, Antoine Deplancke, Fabrice Le Lec, Sophie Massin, Anthony Piermatteo, Nicolas Vaillant

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 92% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christian Ben LakhdarLEM UMR 9221 CNRS, University of Lille, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France christian.ben-lakhdar@univ-lille.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-1572-3389
Antoine DeplanckeETHICS EA 7446, Lille Catholic University, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France.
Fabrice Le LecETHICS EA 7446, Lille Catholic University, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France.
Sophie MassinLEM UMR 9221 CNRS, Artois University, Arras, Hauts-de-France, France.
Anthony PiermatteoETHICS EA 7446, Lille Catholic University, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France.
Nicolas VaillantLEM UMR 9221 CNRS, University of Lille, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversité Catholique de Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTobacco smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death. This is not inevitable as tobacco control tools have become more powerful and more effective. Among these, warnings on cigarette packs have proven to be somewhat effective. Our objective is to increase the efficacy of antismoking warnings by using innovative psychological approaches and to create an experimental setting for the evaluation of these new warnings based on behavioural indicators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: First, we created new warnings based on three categories of motivational leverage and on harm reduction. New warnings with innovative texts and pictures were designed for each category and inserted on plain packs. We will then use standard indicators to compare their effect to that of control packs: plain pack without warning, plain pack with conventional warning and branded pack with conventional warning. Second, the novelty of our approach will consist in designing an experimental protocol that uses monetary incentives to evaluate the effect of warnings. Subjects will be able to 'sacrifice' part of their participation defrayal to purchase a good whose subjective value is related to one's attitude towards smoking. These monetarily incentivised measures are designed to assess smokers' immediate/mid-term intention to quit and non-smokers' aversion to smoking. In both cases, the monetary amounts individuals accept to sacrifice may be a more reliable measure than declarative responses, which may be distorted by several hypothetical biases. In the end, we should be able to robustly measure the impact of our new warnings between intervention and control groups by using both traditional indicators and our new monetarily incentivised measure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics committee of the

Indexed as

Product LabelingSmoking PreventionHarm ReductionHumansMotivationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTobacco Productshealth economicspublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID32595160
PMCPMC7322509
OpenAlexW3037529651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.