Diane B Francis1,2, Marissa G Hall3,4, Seth M Noar2,4, Kurt M Ribisl3,4, Noel T Brewer3,4. 1. Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 2. School of Media and Journalism, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe characteristics and psychometric properties of measures used in pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments and provide recommendations for future studies. METHODS: Our systematic review identified 68 pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments conducted between 2000 and 2016 in 22 countries. Two independent coders coded all studies on study features, including sample characteristics, theoretical framework, and constructs assessed. We also coded measurement characteristics, including construct, number of items, source, reliability, and validity. RESULTS: We identified 278 measures representing 61 constructs. The most commonly assessed construct categories were warning reactions (62% of studies) and perceived effectiveness (60%). The most commonly used outcomes were affective reactions (35%), perceived likelihood of harm (22%), intention to quit smoking (22%), perceptions that warnings motivate people to quit smoking (18%), and credibility (16%). Only 4 studies assessed smoking behavior. More than half (54%) of all measures were single items. For multi-item measures, studies reported reliability data 68% of the time (mean α = 0.88, range α = 0.68-0.98). Studies reported sources of measures only 33% of the time and rarely reported validity data. Of 68 studies, 37 (54%) mentioned a theory as informing the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our review found great variability in constructs and measures used to evaluate the impact of cigarette pack pictorial warnings. Many measures were single items with unknown psychometric properties. Recommendations for future studies include a greater emphasis on theoretical models that inform measurement, use of reliable and validated (preferably multi-item) measures, and better reporting of measure sources. IMPLICATIONS: Robust and consistent measurement is important for building a strong, cumulative evidence base to support pictorial cigarette pack warning policies. This systematic review of experimental studies of pictorial cigarette warnings demonstrates the need for standardized, theory-based measures.
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe characteristics and psychometric properties of measures used in pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments and provide recommendations for future studies. METHODS: Our systematic review identified 68 pictorial cigarette pack warning experiments conducted between 2000 and 2016 in 22 countries. Two independent coders coded all studies on study features, including sample characteristics, theoretical framework, and constructs assessed. We also coded measurement characteristics, including construct, number of items, source, reliability, and validity. RESULTS: We identified 278 measures representing 61 constructs. The most commonly assessed construct categories were warning reactions (62% of studies) and perceived effectiveness (60%). The most commonly used outcomes were affective reactions (35%), perceived likelihood of harm (22%), intention to quit smoking (22%), perceptions that warnings motivate people to quit smoking (18%), and credibility (16%). Only 4 studies assessed smoking behavior. More than half (54%) of all measures were single items. For multi-item measures, studies reported reliability data 68% of the time (mean α = 0.88, range α = 0.68-0.98). Studies reported sources of measures only 33% of the time and rarely reported validity data. Of 68 studies, 37 (54%) mentioned a theory as informing the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our review found great variability in constructs and measures used to evaluate the impact of cigarette pack pictorial warnings. Many measures were single items with unknown psychometric properties. Recommendations for future studies include a greater emphasis on theoretical models that inform measurement, use of reliable and validated (preferably multi-item) measures, and better reporting of measure sources. IMPLICATIONS: Robust and consistent measurement is important for building a strong, cumulative evidence base to support pictorial cigarette pack warning policies. This systematic review of experimental studies of pictorial cigarette warnings demonstrates the need for standardized, theory-based measures.
Authors: Ellen Peters; Daniel Romer; Paul Slovic; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Leisha Wharfield; C K Mertz; Stephanie M Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: James F Thrasher; Matthew C Rousu; Rafael Anaya-Ocampo; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Mauricio Hernández-Avila Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Amy McQueen; Matthew W Kreuter; Sonia Boyum; Vetta S Thompson; Charlene A Caburnay; Erika A Waters; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Suchitra Rath; Qiang Fu Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Alice Mannocci; Vittoria Colamesta; Daniele Mipatrini; Gabriele Messina; Maria Rosaria Gualano; Francesco Gianfagna; G Boccia; Elisa Langiano; Nicola Nicolotti; Giovanni Veronesi; Roberta Siliquini; Elisabetta De Vito; Giuseppe La Torre Journal: Public Health Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: Geoffrey T Fong; David Hammond; Yuan Jiang; Qiang Li; Anne C K Quah; Pete Driezen; Mi Yan Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Dirk-Jan A van Mourik; Gera E Nagelhout; Hein de Vries; Bas van den Putte; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Matthew Stone; David Strong; Claudiu Dimofte; Elizabeth Brighton; Jesica Oratowski; Tingyi Yang; Manar Alkuzweny; Atean Asslani; Katherine Velasco; Michael Skipworth; Noe C Crespo; Samantha Hurst; Eric C Leas; Kim Pulvers; John P Pierce Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Christian Ben Lakhdar; Antoine Deplancke; Fabrice Le Lec; Sophie Massin; Anthony Piermatteo; Nicolas Vaillant Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692