Elizabeth G Klein1, Mahmood A Alalwan2, Michael L Pennell3, David Angeles4, Marielle C Brinkman5, Brittney Keller-Hamilton6, Megan E Roberts7, Paul Nini8, Amy K Ferketich9. 1. Elizabeth G. Klein, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States;, Email: klein.232@osu.edu. 2. Mahmood A. Alalwan, Student Research Assistant, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States. 3. Michael L. Pennell, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States. 4. David Angeles, Graduate Research Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 5. Marielle C. Brinkman, Senior Research Scientist, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States. 6. Brittney Keller-Hamilton, Research Scientist, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, United States. 7. Megan E. Roberts, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States. 8. Paul Nini, Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 9. Amy K. Ferketich, United States, Professor, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to select a health warning message location on a waterpipe (WP) that both attracted visual attention and conveyed the risks associated with WP smoking. Methods: During June through November 2019, we conducted a within-subjects randomized experiment (N = 74) using eye tracking equipment to examine visual attention to 3 placements of a health warning on the WP (stem, water bowl, hose). We asked young adult ever WP users 3 questions about WP harm perceptions. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the amount of fixation time spent on the placement locations; we used repeated measures ANOVA to model changes in harm perceptions. Results: There were statistically significant differences across all 3 placement locations; regardless of place, all HWLs attracted a comparable amount of visual attention. Absolute WP harm perceptions significantly increased following the experiment and remained significantly higher at the one-week follow-up, compared to baseline. Conclusions: Warnings on WPs attracted visual attention and increased harm perceptions, and those harm perceptions remained high one week after the experiment. Findings indicate the value of including a warning on the WP device, and underscore the necessity and effectiveness of those health warnings to combat WP harm misperceptions.
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to select a health warning message location on a waterpipe (WP) that both attracted visual attention and conveyed the risks associated with WP smoking. Methods: During June through November 2019, we conducted a within-subjects randomized experiment (N = 74) using eye tracking equipment to examine visual attention to 3 placements of a health warning on the WP (stem, water bowl, hose). We asked young adult ever WP users 3 questions about WP harm perceptions. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the amount of fixation time spent on the placement locations; we used repeated measures ANOVA to model changes in harm perceptions. Results: There were statistically significant differences across all 3 placement locations; regardless of place, all HWLs attracted a comparable amount of visual attention. Absolute WP harm perceptions significantly increased following the experiment and remained significantly higher at the one-week follow-up, compared to baseline. Conclusions: Warnings on WPs attracted visual attention and increased harm perceptions, and those harm perceptions remained high one week after the experiment. Findings indicate the value of including a warning on the WP device, and underscore the necessity and effectiveness of those health warnings to combat WP harm misperceptions.
Authors: James F Thrasher; Noel T Brewer; Jeff Niederdeppe; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Rachel Grana; Annette R Kaufman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer Cornacchione; Kimberly G Wagoner; Kimberly D Wiseman; Dannielle Kelley; Seth M Noar; Margaret H Smith; Erin L Sutfin Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2016-06-23
Authors: Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Makala Fioritto; Elizabeth G Klein; Marielle C Brinkman; Michael L Pennell; Paul Nini; Joanne G Patterson; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Azieb W Kidanu; Rui Shi; Raul Cruz-Cano; Robert H Feldman; James Butler; Typhanye V Dyer; Craig S Fryer; Amitabh Varshney; Eric Lee; Pamela I Clark Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Adriana Pérez; Meagan A Bluestein; Arnold E Kuk; Baojiang Chen; Kymberle L Sterling; Melissa B Harrell Journal: Tob Use Insights Date: 2021-12-13