IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i8p1578-d159935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer R. Mendel

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Marissa G. Hall

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Sabeeh A. Baig

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Michelle Jeong

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Noel T. Brewer

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

Abstract

Health warnings for e-cigarettes are a promising and novel tobacco control intervention for reducing e-cigarette use. We developed a new protocol for evaluating e-cigarette warnings by placing them on users’ own devices to reflect real-world exposure. Study 1 participants were a national convenience sample of 606 U.S. adult e-cigarette users surveyed online in March 2017. Most Study 1 participants were willing to have their e-cigarette devices (87%) and refills (83%) labeled. Study 2 participants were a convenience sample of 22 adult e-cigarette users recruited in California, United States in April 2017. We applied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s proposed e-cigarette warning to users’ own devices and refills. Most Study 2 participants (81%) reported using e-cigarette devices with our warning labels at least 90% of the time during the study. Nearly all (95%) said they would participate in the study again, and 100% would recommend the study to a friend. Conversations about e-cigarette harms, conversations about quitting e-cigarettes, and intentions to quit using e-cigarettes increased during the study (all p < 0.05). These studies show that our naturalistic labeling protocol was feasible, acceptable to participants, and had high retention over three weeks. Using the protocol can yield important evidence on the impact of e-cigarette warnings to inform tobacco warning policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer R. Mendel & Marissa G. Hall & Sabeeh A. Baig & Michelle Jeong & Noel T. Brewer, 2018. "Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1578-:d:159935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1578/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1578/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivia A. Wackowski & David Hammond & Richard J. O’Connor & Andrew A. Strasser & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2017. "Considerations and Future Research Directions for E-Cigarette Warnings—Findings from Expert Interviews," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Noar, S.M. & Hall, M.G. & Brewer, N.T., 2015. "Pictorial cigarette pack warnings have important effects," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(3), pages 1-1.
    3. Popova, L. & Ling, P.M., 2013. "Alternative tobacco product use and smoking cessation: a national study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(5), pages 923-930.
    4. Popova, L. & Ling, P.M., 2013. "Alternative tobacco product use and smoking cessation: A national study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(5), pages 923-930.
    5. Jinsong Chen & Chris Bullen & Kim Dirks, 2017. "A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-10, April.
    6. Marissa G. Hall & Kathryn Peebles & Laura E. Bach & Seth M. Noar & Kurt M. Ribisl & Noel T. Brewer, 2015. "Social Interactions Sparked by Pictorial Warnings on Cigarette Packs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivia A. Wackowski & Jennah M. Sontag & David Hammond & Richard J. O’Connor & Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland & Andrew A. Strasser & Andrea C. Villanti & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2019. "The Impact of E-Cigarette Warnings, Warning Themes and Inclusion of Relative Harm Statements on Young Adults’ E-Cigarette Perceptions and Use Intentions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Marissa G. Hall & Isabella C. A. Higgins & Anna H. Grummon & Allison J. Lazard & Carmen E. Prestemon & Jennifer Mendel Sheldon & Lindsey Smith Taillie, 2021. "Using a Naturalistic Store Laboratory for Clinical Trials of Point-of-Sale Nutrition Policies and Interventions: A Feasibility and Validation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tom Liu & Thomas J. Deiss & Matthew W. Lippi & Alejandra Jauregui & Kathryn Vessel & Serena Ke & Annika Belzer & Hanjing Zhuo & Kirsten N. Kangelaris & Antonio D. Gomez & Michael A. Matthay & Kathleen, 2020. "Alternative Tobacco Product Use in Critically Ill Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Cheryl Rivard & Anthony Brown & Karin Kasza & Maansi Bansal-Travers & Andrew Hyland, 2021. "Home Tobacco Use Policies and Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Findings from Waves 1 through 4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Ying Xu & Yanfang Guo & Kaiqian Liu & Zheng Liu & Xiaobo Wang, 2016. "E-Cigarette Awareness, Use, and Harm Perception among Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Konstantinos E. Farsalinos & Giorgio Romagna & Dimitris Tsiapras & Stamatis Kyrzopoulos & Vassilis Voudris, 2014. "Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Shannon Gravely & Geoffrey T. Fong & K. Michael Cummings & Mi Yan & Anne C. K. Quah & Ron Borland & Hua-Hie Yong & Sara C. Hitchman & Ann McNeill & David Hammond & James F. Thrasher & Marc C. Willemse, 2014. "Awareness, Trial, and Current Use of Electronic Cigarettes in 10 Countries: Findings from the ITC Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Tomoyasu Hirano & Takahiro Tabuchi & Rika Nakahara & Naoki Kunugita & Yumiko Mochizuki-Kobayashi, 2017. "Electronic Cigarette Use and Smoking Abstinence in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study of Quitting Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-9, February.
    7. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    8. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    9. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    10. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    11. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    12. Marissa G. Hall & Jessica K. Pepper & Jennifer C. Morgan & Noel T. Brewer, 2016. "Social Interactions as a Source of Information about E-Cigarettes: A Study of U.S. Adult Smokers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.
    13. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    14. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    15. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    16. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    17. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    18. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    19. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    20. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1578-:d:159935. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.