Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35534230›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2023

Perceived effectiveness of objective elements of vaping prevention messages among adolescents.

Marcella H Boynton, Nora Sanzo, Whitney Brothers, Alex Kresovich, Erin L Sutfin, Paschal Sheeran, Seth M Noar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Perceptions of Prevention and Cessation Ads among US Youth Who Use Multiple Tobacco Products: A Qualitative Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marcella H BoyntonDivision of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA mhb23@unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7793-2111
Nora SanzoLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Whitney BrothersHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Alex KresovichHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6467-7991
Erin L SutfinDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2660-8383
Paschal SheeranLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7449-4590
Seth M NoarLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3453-5391
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Impact of e-cigarette prevention messages on adolescentsR01DA049155 · NIDA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI NOAR, SETH MICHAEL · 2020 to 2024
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA049155
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn recent years, vaping prevention campaigns have proliferated in response to a surge of e-cigarette use among adolescents in the USA. To date, the research literature has provided minimal guidance as to what vaping prevention message elements have the greatest potential for discouraging vaping, are ineffective or have unintended negative effects. The purpose of the current study was to identify and test a large set of vaping prevention ads used by federal, state, local and non-governmental agencies, examining how objectively coded message elements of vaping prevention messages might affect youth.

methodsA convenience sample of adolescents (N=1501) completed an online survey with each participant rating seven randomly selected vaping prevention ads from a pool of 220 ads on perceived message effectiveness (PME) and vaping appeal. Ads were coded on 37 objective elements in three message categories: themes, imagery and other features. Analyses examined how objective elements predicted PME.

resultsAddiction, chemicals, negative health symptoms and effects, and cigarette comparison themes were associated with higher PME, as were graphic images and warning symbols. Industry targeting, environmental impact, flavour themes, images of food and people's faces were associated with lower PME, as were hashtags, statistics and first-person language or the word 'teen'. Most elements were not associated with appeal, but ads with a flavour theme were associated with increased vaping appeal.

conclusionPromising vaping prevention messages focus on the adverse consequences of vaping, use negative imagery and avoid speaking for teens using their vernacular or perspective.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentFlavoring AgentsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesFlavoring AgentsElectronic nicotine delivery devicesNicotinePrevention

Identifiers

PMID35534230
PMCPMC9643679
OpenAlexW4280574398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.