ArticleBMJ open2026
Changes in vaping-related knowledge following the delivery of an educational intervention to university students in Mexico: a prospective follow-up study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssess changes in the vaping-related knowledge of Mexican university students following participation in a structured educational session.
designA prospective, longitudinal, one-group non-randomised, pre-test-post-test study with a 3-month follow-up.
settingThe study was conducted between December 2023 and January 2025 at two private, teaching-oriented and professional-training-oriented universities in the Mexican states of Nuevo León and Durango.
participantsA total of 304 undergraduate students completed the baseline and immediate postintervention participation assessments and 181 participants (59.5%) completed the 3-month follow-up assessment.
interventionParticipants attended a standardised educational session that communicated information about nicotine addiction, vaping-related health risks and the proper environmental disposal of electronic cigarettes. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the sum of correct responses to eight scored knowledge items (raw range 0-8; one point per correct response). Secondary outcomes included changes in individual knowledge items. All inferential analyses used the raw 0-8 score; conversion to a 0-100 percentage-correct scale was used only for descriptive interpretation. Paired t tests, McNemar tests, 95% CIs and Cohen's d effect sizes were used.
resultsOur findings show that knowledge improved across most scored knowledge items immediately after participation in the intervention and remained higher than baseline after 3 months. Specifically, mean knowledge scores increased from 4.82±1.70 at baseline to 6.53±1.64 immediately after participation in the intervention (mean difference 1.71, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.99; p<0.001; Cohen's d=1.02) and 6.62±1.67 at follow-up (mean difference from baseline 1.85, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.20; p<0.001; Cohen's d=1.09). No significant difference was observed between immediately postintervention and follow-up assessments (p=0.384). Attrition analyses identified no significant differences in baseline knowledge (p=0.602) or sex (p=0.321) between retained participants and those lost to follow-up.
conclusionsParticipation in a structured educational intervention was associated with significant and sustained improvements in vaping-related knowledge among participating university students. The study did not assess whether these knowledge gains translated into changes in vaping initiation, cessation or use; this requires evaluation in controlled studies with behavioural outcomes.
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.