ArticleBMJ open2022
Identifying credible attribution sources for cigarette health warning labels in China: results from a cross-sectional survey of Chinese adults.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tailoring e-Cigarette Health Messages by Vaping Status: How Source and Message Presentation Type Shape Young Adults' Perceptions.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recommends health warning labels (HWLs) include an attribution source. Little is known regarding the perceived credibility and effectiveness of different message sources. This study examined perceptions of four HWL attribution sources among adults in China - the world's largest consumer of cigarettes.
designCross-sectional experimental survey design.
participantsData were collected in 2017 from a convenience sample of 1999 adults across four cities in China; 80% of the sample were current smokers.
main outcome measuresParticipants viewed four versions of the same HWL, each with a different attribution source: the China Center for Disease Control (ref. group); the regulatory arm of China's domestic tobacco company (STMA); Liyuan Peng, China's first lady; and the WHO. Respondents indicated which HWL was the most: (1) credible, (2) effective at making people quit and (3) effective at preventing youth initiation.
resultsMultinomial logistic regression models estimated adjusted relative risk ratios (aRRRs) of the three outcomes. Controlling for demographics and smoking status, HWLs attributed to STMA and Liyuan Peng, respectively, were perceived as significantly less credible (aRRR=0.81, p<0.001; aRRR=0.31, p<0.001), less effective at making people quit (aRRR=0.46, p<0.001; aRRR=0.24, p<0.001) and less effective at preventing young smoking (aRRR=0.52, p<0.001; aRRR=0.39, p<0.001) than the China CDC HWL. There were no significant differences in perceived effectiveness of between the WHO and China CDC HWLs. Participants viewed the WHO HWL as significantly more credible (aRRR=1.21, p<0.001) than the China CDC HWL.
conclusionResults suggest the unique role of health organisations in conveying smoking-related messages that appear credible and effective at motivating others to quit smoking or never start smoking in China. Findings can inform global recommendations regarding HWL attribution sources.
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.