Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38468465›Full record

Observational studyNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2024

Do Flavor Descriptions Influence Subjective Ratings of Flavored and Unflavored E-liquids Among Nonsmoking and Non-vaping UK Adolescents?

Maddy L Dyer, Steph F Suddell, Jasmine N Khouja, Michelle A Havill, Anna K M Blackwell, Olivia M Maynard, Marcus R Munafò, Angela S Attwood

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Maddy L DyerSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5924-4400
Steph F SuddellTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience (TCIN), Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jasmine N KhoujaSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7944-2981
Michelle A HavillDepartment of Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, UK.
Anna K M BlackwellDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Olivia M MaynardSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9048-6627
Marcus R MunafòSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4049-993X
Angela S AttwoodSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3696-4349

Funding

Cancer Research UK C18281/A29019Public Health EnglandUniversity of Bristol MC_UU_00011/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionYouth use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is rising globally and is associated with health harms. Flavor descriptions on e-liquid packaging may contribute to the appeal of e-cigarettes among youth. This study compared subjective ratings of e-liquid packaging flavor descriptions among nonsmoking and non-vaping UK adolescents. AIMS AND

methodsThis was an online observational study in a UK sample of nonsmoking and non-vaping adolescents aged 11-17 years. The primary analyses compared flavored versus unflavored descriptions and the secondary analyses compared sweet flavor versus fruit flavor descriptions. Outcomes were packaging appraisal, packaging receptivity, perceived harm, and perceived audience.

resultsThe survey was completed by 120 participants (74% female). Packaging appraisal ratings were higher for e-liquids with flavored descriptions than unflavored descriptions (mean difference 5.9, 95% CI: 4.2 to 7.6, p < .001). Similarly, packaging receptivity ratings were higher for e-liquids with flavored descriptions than unflavored descriptions (mean difference 4.2, 95% CI: 2.8 to 5.6, p < .001). Participants also perceived e-liquids with flavored (vs. unflavored) descriptions as less "grown-up" (mean difference -5.2, 95% CI: -7.3 to -3.1, p < .001). However, ratings of perceived harm were similar for flavored and unflavored descriptions (mean difference -1.0, 95% CI: -2.6 to .5, p = .189).

conclusionsAlthough this study found differences in subjective ratings of e-liquids with flavored and unflavored descriptions, nonsmoking and non-vaping UK adolescents generally had low appraisal and receptivity for e-liquids and they perceived them as being "grown-up" and harmful. IMPLICATIONS: Youth use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing globally, leading to concerns about health harms. This study compared adolescents' ratings of e-liquids with flavored versus unflavored descriptions and e-liquids with sweet flavor versus fruit flavor descriptions. This study adds to previous studies that have compared adolescents' ratings of e-liquids with tobacco flavor versus non-tobacco flavor descriptions. Although packaging appraisal and receptivity ratings were higher (more positive) for e-liquids with flavored versus unflavored descriptions, overall, adolescents who do not smoke or vape had low appraisal and receptivity for e-liquids, and they perceived them as being "grown-up" and harmful.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFlavoring AgentsVapingAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleProduct PackagingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomFlavoring Agents

Identifiers

PMID38468465
PMCPMC11339169

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.