Trial reportHealth education research2023
A mixed-method study of perceptions of cigarette pack inserts among adult smokers from New York and South Carolina exposed as part of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Health education research, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While many countries require prominent pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) on the outside of cigarette packs to communicate the harms of smoking, there is evidence that cigarette pack inserts that contain efficacy messages may enhance the effectiveness of PHWLs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory authority to communicate with smokers through inserts. While current labeling regulations do not require inclusion of inserts, the FDA could implement them in the future. This study assesses US smokers' perceptions of cigarette package inserts at the conclusion of a two-week randomized trial on cigarette labeling where half of participants were exposed to insert messages (two response-efficacy messages and two self-efficacy messages) in their packs. Participants (n = 359) completed a 30- to 60-min interview with both quantitative and qualitative assessments, including measures of recall and perceived message effectiveness (PME) for specific inserts. Correlates of recall and PME were estimated using mixed-effects regression models. Qualitative responses to PME items were analyzed using thematic analysis. Response-efficacy messages had higher PME and recall than self-efficacy messages. People had diverse responses to the inserts, including that they were positive, thought-provoking, and helpful. Reactions to and perceptions of the inserts indicate potential benefits of integrating efficacy messages into labeling policies.
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.