Trial reportHealth promotion international2025
Tobacco package health warnings about product manipulations: an experimental study among Australian adults who smoke.
Trial report in Health promotion international, 2025. 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.
- The Effects of Filter Ventilation and Expanded Tobacco on the Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide Yields from Cigarettes Sold in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The tobacco industry manipulates cigarettes to provide sensory cues that mislead people who smoke. We assessed the effectiveness of health warnings (HWs) focussed on the impact of misleading product attributes, including filter ventilation, menthol, and roll-your-own tobacco, which were called Product Attribute HWs. Australian adults who smoke (n = 2544) were randomly assigned to view: control medication warnings; new Standard HWs with smoking harm images; Product Attribute HWs; or Product Attribute HWs plus a video. At baseline, participants were exposed to seven condition-specific warnings (+ video for those in the Product Attribute HWs + Video condition), then they were potentially re-exposed to one warning daily for 7 days (+ up to six video viewings). Participants (n = 1414) were followed-up at 8 days. Compared to controls, exposure to Product Attribute HWs elicited: greater increases in concern when inhaling smoke with misleading favourable (e.g. smooth) and unfavourable (e.g. harsh) sensory cues; greater knowledge of industry manipulation; greater self-centric and industry-centric negative emotions; higher product-specific smoking dissonance; and a higher likelihood of past-week rumination about HWs. Compared to Standard HWs, Product Attribute HWs elicited greater knowledge of product manipulation and industry-centric negative emotions, but similar self-centric negative emotions and past-week rumination about warnings. Only the Product Attribute HWs + Video condition resulted in greater discussion and online information-seeking about warnings. Product Attribute HWs that challenge long-standing myths fostered by tobacco companies yield many similar outcomes to Standard HWs but also provide unique beneficial outcomes. Nations should consider including Product Attribute HWs in their suites of tobacco HWs.
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.