Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418506›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2023

Impact of e-cigarette retail displays on attitudes to smoking and vaping in children: an online experimental study.

Anna K M Blackwell, Mark A Pilling, Katie De-Loyde, Richard W Morris, Laura A Brocklebank, Theresa M Marteau, Marcus R Munafò

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2023. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Factors Associated With Victorian Adolescents' Harm Perceptions and Attitudes About e-Cigarettes.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Measuring susceptibility to use tobacco in an increasingly complex consumer marketplace: How many questions do we really need?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anna K M BlackwellSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4984-1818
Mark A PillingBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7446-6597
Katie De-LoydeSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8672-9710
Richard W MorrisBristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7240-4563
Laura A BrocklebankDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5928-3143
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3025-1129
Marcus R MunafòSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK marcus.munafo@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4049-993X
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBAt Bristol · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 206853/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo estimate the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) retail display exposure on attitudes to smoking and vaping (susceptibility to tobacco smoking and using e-cigarettes, and perceptions of the harms of smoking and e-cigarette use).

designBetween-subjects randomised experiment using a 2 (e-cigarette retail display visibility: high vs low)×2 (proportion of e-cigarette images: 75% vs 25%) factorial design.

settingOnline via the Qualtrics survey platform.

participantsUK children aged 13-17 years (n=1034), recruited through a research agency.

interventionParticipants viewed 12 images of retail displays that contained e-cigarette display images or unrelated product images. E-cigarette display images were either high or low visibility, based on a conspicuousness score. Participants were randomised to one of four groups, with e-cigarette display visibility and proportion of e-cigarette images, compared with images of unrelated products, manipulated: (1) 75% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (2) 25% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (3) 75% e-cigarettes, low visibility; (4) 25% e-cigarettes, low visibility.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was susceptibility to smoking (among never smokers only). Secondary outcomes were susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (among never vapers only), and perceptions of smoking and e-cigarette harm (all participants).

resultsNeither e-cigarette retail display visibility, nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to smoking (visibility: OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.13, p=0.24; proportion: OR=1.34, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82, p=0.054 (reference: low visibility, not susceptible)).Planned subgroup analyses indicated that exposure to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking among children who visited retail stores more regularly (n=524, OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.43, p=0.034), and those who passed the attention check (n=880, OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.031).In addition, neither e-cigarette retail display visibility nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (visibility: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43, p=0.65; proportion: OR=1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64, p=0.18).Greater visibility of e-cigarette retail displays reduced perceived harm of smoking (mean difference (MD)=-0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04, p=0.016). There was no evidence that the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed had an effect (MD=-0.07, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.09, p=0.40).Perceived harm of e-cigarette use did not appear to be affected by e-cigarette retail display visibility (MD=-0.12, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.05, p=0.16) or by the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed (MD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.07, p=0.24).

conclusionsThere is no evidence in the full sample to suggest that children's susceptibility to smoking is increased by exposure to higher visibility e-cigarette retail displays, or to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images. However, for regular store visitors or those paying more attention, viewing a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking. In addition, viewing higher visibility e-cigarette images reduced perceived harm of smoking. A review of the current regulatory discrepancy between tobacco and e-cigarette point-of-sale marketing is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18215632.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingChildHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMarketingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmokingTobacco Smokingelectronic nicotine delivery devicesenvironmentpublic policy

Identifiers

PMID35418506
PMCPMC10423515
OpenAlexW4224018125

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.