ArticleTobacco control2021
Responses to reduced nicotine cigarette marketing features: a systematic review.
Article in Tobacco control, 2021. 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.
- Tobacco endgame measures and their adaptation in selected European countries: A narrative review synthesis.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2024Review
- Effects of reduced nicotine content cigarette advertising with warning labels and social media features on product perceptions among young adults.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Assessing Attention to Tobacco Warnings With a Heatmapping Task.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Effects of Modified Tobacco Risk Products with Claims and Nicotine Features on Perceptions among Racial and Ethnic Groups.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
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
objectiveTo systematically review the literature regarding responses to commercial and public health marketing features for reduced nicotine cigarettes (RNCs) to anticipate potential industry and regulatory actions should an RNC product standard be issued. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed for English-language articles using several keywords for reduced nicotine products, cigarettes and marketing features published through 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Of 4092 records, 26 studies were retained for review that met criteria focusing on responses to RNC marketing features. DATA EXTRACTION: Search terms created by the research team were used for review and included independent extraction and coding by two reviewers. Coding was categorised using study design terminology, commercial and public health features in tobacco regulatory science, and their association with individual responses outlined by several message processing outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most studies focused on current cigarette smokers and were cross-sectional. Reactions to RNCs and attitudes and beliefs were the most common outcomes measured. For commercial features, articles generally studied RNC advertisements, products and/or descriptors. For public health features, articles studied counter-messaging (eg, warning labels) or general descriptors about nicotine or a reduced nicotine product standard. Commercial features were generally associated with favourable responses. Public health features offset favourable responses across most outcomes, though their efficacy was mixed. Contrasts in results by smoking status are discussed.
conclusionsCommercial marketing of RNCs is appealing and may need stronger regulations or communication campaigns to accurately convey risks. Opportunities exist for future research within tobacco regulatory science.
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.