Trial reportNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2026
Assessing the impact of a reduced chemical exposure claim in advertisements for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among youth and young adults.
Trial report in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe tested whether e-cigarette advertisements (ads) with a claim of reduced chemical exposure (RCE) and various brands impact e-cigarette-related perceptions among young people.
methodsA randomized, 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment was embedded in a web-based survey of youth (ages 13-17) and young adults (ages 18-29) who smoke cigarettes (n = 1667) or who do not use tobacco (n = 833). Participants viewed 1 of 6 e-cigarette ad conditions that varied according to 2 manipulated factors: RCE claim (present or absent) and e-cigarette brand (Logic Power, Vuse Vibe, or Njoy Ace). After viewing the ad, perceptions about the ad and the promoted e-cigarette product in the ad were assessed.
resultsWe did not observe an e-cigarette brand effect or interactive effects between the two main factors on any outcomes. Among those who smoke, the RCE claim generated increased perceptions that the ad made them want to use (P = .039) or completely switch to the e-cigarette (P = .048). Among those who do not use tobacco, it led to elevated perceptions that the e-cigarette is less addictive than cigarettes (P = .034) and intentions of using the e-cigarette compared to cigarettes (P = .009).
conclusionE-cigarette ads containing a RCE claim may be perceived as more effective in influencing product use and complete switching intentions among young people who smoke. While we did not observe such an effect among those who do not use tobacco, future efforts to promote e-cigarette MRTP claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among this audience to mitigate the potential for unintended effects. IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates the potential influence of reduced chemical exposure (RCE) claims in advertisements (ads) for US Food and Drug Administration-authorized e-cigarette products among young adults who smoke, suggesting that such claims may enhance the perceived effectiveness of advertising. Although we found few significant effects among tobacco-naïve youth and young adults, any efforts to promote e-cigarette RCE claims should aim to limit exposure to such claims among these young audiences to mitigate the potential for unintended effects. These results will be critical to understanding how RCE claims in e-cigarette ads may differentially shape e-cigarette-related perceptions and behaviors across young people of diverse tobacco-use groups.
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.