Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32708854›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Comparison of a General and Conditional Measure of E-Cigarette Harm Perceptions.

Olivia A Wackowski, Michelle Jeong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Tackling Smoker Misperceptions About E-cigarettes Using Expert Videos.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Characterization of Electronic Cigarette Warning Statements Portrayed in YouTube Videos.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Olivia A WackowskiCenter for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
Michelle JeongCenter for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Elisa Victoria Bandera · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
Perceptions and Impact of Modified Risk Tobacco Product Communication MessagesR37CA222002 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2018 to 2023
$2.1M
The Impact of E-cigarette Marketing Features on Youths' E-cigarette Perceptions and Use IntentionsK01CA242591 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI JEONG, MICHELLE · 2019 to 2023
$964k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA242591NCI NIH HHS P30 CA072720NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222002NCI NIH HHS R37CA222002U.S. Food and Drug Administration K01CA242591
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measures of tobacco product harm perceptions are important in research, given their association with tobacco use. Despite recommendations to use more specific harm and risk perception measures, limited research exists comparing different wordings. We present exploratory survey data comparing young adults' (ages 18-29) responses to a general e-cigarette harm perception measure ("How harmful, if at all, do you think vaping/using an e-cigarette is to a user's health?") with a more specific conditional measure, which personalized the behavior/harm ("imagine you vaped," "your health") and presented a specific use condition (exclusive daily vaping) and timeframe (10 years). Data were collected in January 2019 (n = 1006). Measures were highly correlated (r = 0.76, Cronbach's α = 0.86), and most (65%) provided consistent responses, although more participants rated e-cigarettes as very or extremely harmful using the conditional (51.6%) versus the general (43.9%) harm measure. However, significant differences in harm ratings were not observed among young adults who currently vaped. Correlations between each harm perception measure and measures of e-cigarette use intentions were similar. More specifically worded harm perception measures may result in somewhat higher e-cigarette harm ratings than general measures for some young adults. Additional research on best practices for measuring e-cigarette and other tobacco harm perceptions is warranted.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsPublic OpinionTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentAdultHumansRiskSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adulte-cigarettesharm perceptionmeasurementrisk perception

Identifiers

PMID32708854
PMCPMC7400449

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.