Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2025
Assessing Responses to Cannabis Health Warnings Among Adults in U.S. Recreational States.
Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 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.
- "Well, if they exist, I ignore them": A focus group study of recall and reactions to cannabis health warnings by cannabis consumers in the United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGuided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, this study used BERTopic modeling and manual coding to analyze reactions to cannabis health warnings and to assess how those responses were associated with message reactions, health beliefs, and intentions.
methodsIn 2022, adults (aged ≥21 years; N=1,078) living in recreational cannabis-use-approved U.S. states who reported using cannabis in the past year were randomly assigned to view text-only or pictorial cannabis health warnings. Participants wrote free-response reactions to the warnings, which were analyzed in 2025 using BERTopic, a clustering approach of topical modeling. Participant responses were manually coded into Extended Parallel Process Model response categories (maladaptive or adaptive). Three linear regression models were conducted, with the main outcome measures (i.e., reactance, health beliefs, and intentions to prevent harms from using cannabis) as the dependent variables; frequency of cannabis use (e.g., past 30-day use and problematic cannabis-use risk), cannabis risk perceptions, and Extended Parallel Process Model responses as predictors; and condition as a control variable.
resultsBERTopic identified 11 thematic subtopics that were coded for Extended Parallel Process Model responses. Responses were more maladaptive (624; 57.9%) than adaptive (454; 42.1%). Multiple linear regression results showed that maladaptive Extended Parallel Process Model response was significantly associated with higher levels of reactance (β=0.38), less accurate health beliefs about cannabis harms (β= -0.32), and lower intentions to prevent harms from using cannabis (β= -0.31).
conclusionsResults provide data-driven evidence on how U.S. cannabis consumers evaluate health warnings from established cannabis control systems. Participant responses reveal areas of resistance and acceptance to warnings, identifying potential ways to improve future messaging.
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.