ArticleBMC public health2026
Health warnings for electronic cigarette packaging: a rapid scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are suggested as a harm reduction product for adults who smoke, but pose an addiction and health risk for non-smoking youth. Health warnings are a central regulatory strategy for reducing e-cigarette-related harms, yet their impact is less understood, and they may function differently across youth and adult populations.
methodsA rapid scoping review, searching Medline for any studies examining responses to e-cigarette health warnings presented on packaging or as stand-alone messages. Outcomes included perceived effectiveness and/or behavioral intentions. Double screening was conducted for titles, abstracts and full texts. Studies were grouped by youth-focused and adult-focused samples. E-cigarette warnings were coded for theme, target audience and use of vague language (e.g., “may”).
resultsIn the final sample (n = 29, n = 201 unique warnings), nine youth-focused studies and 20 adult-focused studies met inclusion criteria. Among youth, warnings emphasizing concrete health harms, particularly brain development, lung damage, and chemical exposure risks, consistently produced stronger perceived harm, fear responses, and reduced interest in e-cigarette use compared with nicotine addiction warnings alone, but addiction-only messages were often perceived as familiar and insufficiently compelling. Youth interpreted vague language as weakening risk and reducing credibility. Harm reduction messages lowered perceived harm and, in some cases, increased openness to use, indicating poor suitability for youth audiences. Among adults, nicotine addiction warnings were consistently rated as clear and credible but were less effective than hazard-based warnings at discouraging use or motivating quitting. Harm reduction messages showed mixed effects: they sometimes increased willingness to try or switch to e-cigarettes among current smokers but increased ambiguity and reduced warning effectiveness among non-smokers. Responses varied substantially by user status and prior tobacco experience.
conclusionsNo single warning approach advanced both youth prevention and adult harm reduction goals. Audience-segmented warning strategies were therefore essential to e-cigarette regulation seeking to protect youth while supporting harm reduction.
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.