Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40631572›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Evaluating the impact of vaping facts films on vaping harm perceptions among young adults in the UK: A randomized on-line experiment.

Mohammad Alharbi, Emma Ward, Caitlin Notley, Martin Dockrell, Eve Taylor, Katherine East

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

6 authors.

Mohammad AlharbiNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Emma WardLifespan Health Research Centre, Addiction Research Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7579-3215
Caitlin NotleyLifespan Health Research Centre, Addiction Research Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0876-3304
Martin DockrellUnaffiliated, London, UK.
Eve TaylorDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3987-4760
Katherine EastNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9083-2131

Funding

Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation Among Youth in the US, Canada, and England: Methods to Predict Uptake and Policy EfficacyP01CA200512 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI FONG, GEOFFREY T · 2016 to 2025
$25.3M
King's College LondonNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNCI NIH HHS P01 CA200512NIH HHS 1P01CA200512Research EnglandSociety for the Study of AddictionUniversity of East Anglia
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimMeasure the impact of brief, academic-led, evidence-based social media videos on vaping harm perceptions among young adults.

designOn-line between-subjects experimental study. Participants were randomized to one of two conditions: experimental (exposed to one of eight brief videos, designed for social media, with academic experts addressing vaping harms) or control. Before and after exposure to the videos, all participants answered questions about their perceptions of vaping and smoking and socio-demographics.

settingQualtrics on-line survey platform.

participants593 young adults aged 18-30 years who resided in the UK (49.7% female, 49.2% male; 8.9% exclusively smoked, 32% exclusively vaped, 28.7% did both and 30.4% did neither). Participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 279) or control (n = 314) groups. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the perception that vaping is less harmful than smoking. Secondary outcomes were perceptions that vaping is harmful, vaping is addictive and responses (true, false) to statements that were matched to the videos (e.g. vaping causes cancer, vaping causes lung injuries).

findingsAfter exposure to an expert video, compared with those in the control group, participants in the intervention group had over three times the odds of perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking [82.1% vs 57.6%; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.69; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 2.49-5.47; P < 0.001]. Perceptions that the following statements are false were also higher after viewing expert videos than control videos: vaping causes lung injury, vaping leads to cancer, nicotine is harmful when used in ways that does not involve smoking tobacco, pregnant women should not vape, vaping will not help you quit smoking, vaping has no place on the NHS (all P < 0.05). Participants exposed to the 'vaping is as harmful as smoking' misconception video had the highest odds of accurately perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking (AOR = 13.92; 95% CI = 3.26-59.37; P < 0.001). Videos specifically targeting individual misconceptions (e.g. 'vaping causes lung injury' or 'vaping causes cancer') were particularly effective in improving related perceptions, indicating that the videos functioned as designed. There was little evidence of associations between condition and perceiving that vaping is not harmful (AOR = 2.57; 95% CI = 0.78-8.52; P = 0.122) or not addictive (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.04-6.67; P = 0.594). Findings were similar among young adults regardless of vaping and smoking status.

conclusionBrief, academic-led, vaping facts films appear to be effective in correcting vaping misperceptions and dispelling common misconceptions.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMotion PicturesSocial MediaVapingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleUnited KingdomYoung Adultexperimentperceptionssmokingsocial mediavapingyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID40631572
PMCPMC12529237

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.