ArticleTobacco control2025
Effectiveness of signage in preventing adolescents and young adults from accessing e-cigarettes in retail stores: a discrete-choice experiment.
Article in Tobacco control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisplaying signage about the minimum legal age (MLA) for tobacco, including e-cigarette sales in retail stores, is a common public health strategy intended to reduce underage access. This study examines a variety of messages currently used in the USA to test the effects of specific components in signage on discouraging e-cigarette purchase among underage individuals.
methodsA cross-sectional discrete-choice experiment asked 5326 adolescents and young adults, aged 13-24 years, to select from eight choice sets of hypothetical signs including different message attributes and images on retail storefronts. We analysed a total of 256 unique signs that varied in how they described tobacco, age, legal restrictions, whether and how images were included and whether there was a photo ID requirement.
resultsSignage was significantly more effective at discouraging underage e-cigarette purchases when it (1) explicitly referred to e-cigarettes as 'liquid nicotine, electronic cigarettes or vapour products' listed among other tobacco products (vs tobacco), (2) displayed the age limit ('under 21'), (3) described legal restrictions, especially when using the word 'penalties', (4) stated 'Photo ID required' (vs not), and (5) included product images (vs not)-especially colour images. Participants under 21 were significantly more sensitive to colour images, the 'penalties' descriptor, and to a photo ID requirement. In addition, female participants were more sensitive to a 'penalties' descriptor compared with males, and non-Hispanic Black participants were less sensitive to an 'illegal' descriptor than non-Hispanic White participants.
conclusionsIncluding effective content and images in existing signage informing the public about MLA of tobacco sales has potential to discourage under-age access to tobacco products.
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.