ArticleBMC public health2026
Applying a mixed-methods approach to evaluate and tailor electronic cigarette pictorial health warning labels for young adults in the United States.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has risen significantly among US young adults, mainly driven by marketing, product design, and addictive nicotine. Pictorial warning labels (PWLs) effectively inform consumers about the risks associated with ENDS use, yet young users were rarely involved in their development. A set of 24 PWLs, categorized into three themes, was developed by a panel of international tobacco control experts via a Delphi study: ENDS toxicity, health risks, and specific harm. In this study, we involved young ENDS users through a mixed-methods approach, including a rating survey to identify the most effective warnings and focus group discussions to gather their feedback on the PWLs design, content, and needed improvements.
methodsWe conducted 22 HIPAA-compliant Zoom focus groups with 61 ENDS users (57% females, aged 21-29). Guided by the Message Impact Framework, participants completed an anonymous rating survey of the PWLs to assess attention, reactions, and perceived effectiveness, followed by in-depth discussions of each PWL. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for the rating survey. Focus group sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.
resultsSurvey results showed toxicity-focused PWLs outperformed those on health effects and specific harm across most outcomes. Focus group results showed warnings depicting human suffering were most impactful. Relevance to participants (e.g., pregnancy, health experiences) emerged as influential factors shaping perceptions of warning effectiveness. Metaphorical images were often perceived as confusing or less believable, thereby diminishing their persuasive potential. Participants recommended applying clear, simple visual and verbal explanations.
conclusionsThis study identified promising PWLs for young adult ENDS users and provides practical guidance to strengthen warning design and regulatory efforts. Warnings featuring clear, literal imagery and human health consequences elicited greater fear, perceived severity, and motivation to reconsider ENDS use, whereas metaphor-based images were often viewed as less credible or confusing. The convergence of quantitative and qualitative findings underscores the importance of targeting emotional and cognitive message responses to enhance warning effectiveness. Since personal relevance varies per individual, using a rotating, diverse portfolio of ENDS warnings targeting different health risks likely improves subgroup resonance and maximizes population impact.
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.