Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38887598›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2024

Self-reported attention and responses to cigarette package labels at the end of a two-week randomized trial of cigarette package labeling configurations.

Victoria C Lambert, Stuart G Ferguson, Jeff Niederdeppe, Yanwen Sun, Emily E Hackworth, Minji Kim, Chih-Hsiang Yang, Desiree Vidaña, James W Hardin, James F Thrasher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Victoria C LambertDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Stuart G FergusonCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Jeff NiederdeppeJeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy and Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States.
Yanwen SunDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Emily E HackworthDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Minji KimDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Chih-Hsiang YangDepartment of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Desiree VidañaDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
James W HardinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
James F ThrasherDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.

Funding

Evaluation of cigarette package inserts for enhanced communication with smokersR01CA215466 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI THRASHER, JAMES · 2019 to 2024
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCigarette package inserts that describe quitting benefits and tips may promote cessation; however, research is needed to understand better their effects, including potentially enhancing the effects of pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs).

methodsA randomized trial with a 2×2 factorial design was conducted with adult smokers (n=356) assigned to either small text-only health warning labels (HWLs; control); inserts with cessation messages, and the small text-only HWLs (inserts-only); large PHWLs (PHWLs-only); both inserts and PHWLs (inserts + PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs labeled to reflect their group. Upon finishing the trial, participants reported their past 14-day frequency of noticing, reading, thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, talking about labels, and forgoing cigarettes because of the labels. Ordered logistic models regressed these outcomes on labeling groups, and mediation analyses assessed whether attention (i.e. noticing, reading) to labels mediated effects of labeling exposure on other outcomes (i.e. thinking about harms/benefits, talking, forgoing).

resultsThe inserts + PHWLs group reported higher frequencies than the control group for all outcomes. Compared to the control group, both the inserts-only and PHWLs-only groups reported higher frequency of noticing (AOR=3.53 and 2.46, respectively) and reading labels (AOR=2.89 and 1.71), thinking about smoking risks because of the labels (AOR=1.93 and 1.82), and talking about labels (AOR=2.30 and 2.70). Participants in the inserts-only group also reported more frequent thinking about quitting benefits (AOR=1.98). Attention mediated all labeling effects except for the contrast between PHWLs only and control.

conclusionsCompared to text-only HWLS, cigarette labeling that involves inserts, PHWLs, or both appears more effective at drawing attention to warnings, which mediated the effects on cessation-related psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

Indexed as

cigarette packageshealth warning labelssmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID38887598
PMCPMC11181013

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.