Trial on the Effect of E-cigarette Advertising on Cigarette Perceptions in Adolescents

Social Norms Clinical Trial

Official title:

Does Exposure to Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Advertising Affect Positive Smoking Expectancies and Social Normative Beliefs About Smoking?

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03786042
• Other study ID #: D19034
• Secondary ID: 1R21CA232054-01
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: February 4, 2019
• Est. completion date: December 9, 2021

Study information

• Verified date: May 2022
• Source: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This research aims to investigate how exposure to advertising for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (commonly called e-cigarettes) may lead to combustible smoking initiation in adolescents.

Description:

[3/14/2020]: Study recruitment temporarily halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 132
• Est. completion date: December 9, 2021
• Est. primary completion date: December 9, 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 14 Years to 17 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

-

Exclusion Criteria:

• Exclusion criteria will include inadequate English proficiency, and diagnosis of a learning or vision disorder.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Attentional Bias
• Disease Susceptibility
• Positive Perceptions About Cigarette Smoking
• Smoking Cues
• Smoking Susceptibility
• Social Norms

Intervention

Behavioral:
• E-cigarette ad exposure
Participants view a series of e-cigarette TV commercials

Other:
• non e-cigarette TV commercials
Participants view a series of non e-cigarette TV commercials

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Dartmouth-Hithchock Medical Center	Lebanon	New Hampshire

Sponsors (3)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center	Dartmouth College, National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (54)

Andrews JA, Hampson SE, Greenwald AG, Gordon J, Widdop C. Using the Implicit Association Test to Assess Children's Implicit Attitudes toward Smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2010 Sep;40(9):2387-2406. — View Citation

Barnett TE, Soule EK, Forrest JR, Porter L, Tomar SL. Adolescent Electronic Cigarette Use: Associations With Conventional Cigarette and Hookah Smoking. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.013. Epub 2015 Mar 31. — View Citation

Baschnagel JS. Using mobile eye-tracking to assess attention to smoking cues in a naturalized environment. Addict Behav. 2013 Dec;38(12):2837-40. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.08.005. Epub 2013 Aug 14. — View Citation

Bernhardt AM, Wilking C, Gottlieb M, Emond J, Sargent JD. Children's reaction to depictions of healthy foods in fast-food television advertisements. JAMA Pediatr. 2014 May;168(5):422-6. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.140. — View Citation

Booth P, Albery IP, Frings D. Effect of e-cigarette advertisements and antismoking messages on explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarette smoking in 18-65-year-olds: a randomised controlled study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 23;7(6):e014361. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014361. — View Citation

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking in Movies. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/movies/index.htm. (Accessed: 5 November 2016)

Connor CE, Egeth HE, Yantis S. Visual attention: bottom-up versus top-down. Curr Biol. 2004 Oct 5;14(19):R850-2. Review. — View Citation

Dal Cin S, Gibson B, Zanna MP, Shumate R, Fong GT. Smoking in movies, implicit associations of smoking with the self, and intentions to smoke. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):559-63. — View Citation

Dalton MA, Sargent JD, Beach ML, Bernhardt AM, Stevens M. Positive and negative outcome expectations of smoking: implications for prevention. Prev Med. 1999 Dec;29(6 Pt 1):460-5. — View Citation

Dalton MA, Sargent JD, Beach ML, Titus-Ernstoff L, Gibson JJ, Ahrens MB, Tickle JJ, Heatherton TF. Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study. Lancet. 2003 Jul 26;362(9380):281-5. — View Citation

Distefan JM, Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. Do favorite movie stars influence adolescent smoking initiation? Am J Public Health. 2004 Jul;94(7):1239-44. Erratum in: Am J Public Health. 2004 Aug;94(8):1296. — View Citation

Duke JC, Lee YO, Kim AE, Watson KA, Arnold KY, Nonnemaker JM, Porter L. Exposure to electronic cigarette television advertisements among youth and young adults. Pediatrics. 2014 Jul;134(1):e29-36. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-0269. Epub 2014 Jun 2. — View Citation

Fairchild AL, Bayer R, Colgrove J. The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes and the tobacco "endgame". N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 23;370(4):293-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1313940. Epub 2013 Dec 18. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 12;370(24):2354. — View Citation

Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Crankshaw EC, Eggers ME, Lee YO, Nonnemaker JM, Kim AE, Porter L. A Randomized Trial of the Effect of E-cigarette TV Advertisements on Intentions to Use E-cigarettes. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov;49(5):686-693. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.010. Epub 2015 Jul 7. — View Citation

Field, M. & Wiers, R. in Drug Abuse and Addiction in Medical Illness: Causes, Consequences and Treatment (eds. Verster, J. C., Brady, K., Galanter, M. & Conrod, P.) 35-45 (Springer New York, 2012).

Frith CD, Frith U. Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron. 2008 Nov 6;60(3):503-10. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.032. Review. — View Citation

Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L. & Pomery, E. A. A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Dev Rev 28, 29-61 (2008).

Gilbert, D. G. & Rabinovich, N. E. International smoking series (with neural counterparts) verion 1.2. (1999).

Gilbert-Diamond D, Emond JA, Lansigan RK, Rapuano KM, Kelley WM, Heatherton TF, Sargent JD. Television food advertisement exposure and FTO rs9939609 genotype in relation to excess consumption in children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2017 Jan;41(1):23-29. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2016.163. Epub 2016 Sep 22. — View Citation

Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014 May 13;129(19):1972-86. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.007667. Review. — View Citation

Grana RA, Ling PM. "Smoking revolution": a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Apr;46(4):395-403. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010. — View Citation

Hanewinkel R, Isensee B, Sargent JD, Morgenstern M. Cigarette advertising and teen smoking initiation. Pediatrics. 2011 Feb;127(2):e271-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2934. Epub 2011 Jan 17. — View Citation

Hanewinkel R, Sargent JD. Exposure to smoking in internationally distributed American movies and youth smoking in Germany: a cross-cultural cohort study. Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121(1):e108-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-1201. — View Citation

Heatherton TF, Sargent JD. Does Watching Smoking in Movies Promote Teenage Smoking? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009 Apr 15;18(2):63-67. — View Citation

Hine DW, Honan CA, Marks AD, Brettschneider K. Development and validation of the Smoking Expectancy Scale for Adolescents. Psychol Assess. 2007 Sep;19(3):347-55. — View Citation

Hunt K, Sweeting H. You have been QUALIFIED for a smokeless e-cig starter kit. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Aug;68(8):786. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-203879. Epub 2014 Apr 29. — View Citation

Jackson C, Brown JD, L'Engle KL. R-rated movies, bedroom televisions, and initiation of smoking by white and black adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Mar;161(3):260-8. — View Citation

Kersbergen I, Field M. Visual attention to alcohol cues and responsible drinking statements within alcohol advertisements and public health campaigns: Relationships with drinking intentions and alcohol consumption in the laboratory. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017 Jun;31(4):435-446. doi: 10.1037/adb0000284. Epub 2017 May 11. — View Citation

King AC, Smith LJ, Fridberg DJ, Matthews AK, McNamara PJ, Cao D. Exposure to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) visual imagery increases smoking urge and desire. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016 Feb;30(1):106-12. doi: 10.1037/adb0000123. Epub 2015 Nov 30. — View Citation

Lewis-Esquerre JM, Rodrigue JR, Kahler CW. Development and validation of an adolescent smoking consequences questionnaire. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005 Feb;7(1):81-90. — View Citation

Lochbuehler K, Otten R, Voogd H, Engels RC. Parental smoking and children's attention to smoking cues. J Psychopharmacol. 2012 Jul;26(7):1010-6. doi: 10.1177/0269881112439254. Epub 2012 Feb 27. — View Citation

Lochbuehler K, Voogd H, Scholte RH, Engels RC. Attentional bias in smokers: exposure to dynamic smoking cues in contemporary movies. J Psychopharmacol. 2011 Apr;25(4):514-9. doi: 10.1177/0269881110388325. Epub 2010 Nov 23. — View Citation

Macy JT, Chassin L, Presson CC, Yeung E. Exposure to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages: Effects on implicit and explicit attitudes towards smoking among young adults. Psychol Health. 2016;31(3):349-63. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2015.1104309. Epub 2015 Nov 3. — View Citation

National Cancer Institute. The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. Tobacco control monograph No. 19. (2008).

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2012. — View Citation

Nosek BA. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):565-84. — View Citation

Pierce JP, Sargent JD, White MM, Borek N, Portnoy DB, Green VR, Kaufman AR, Stanton CA, Bansal-Travers M, Strong DR, Pearson JL, Coleman BN, Leas E, Noble ML, Trinidad DR, Moran MB, Carusi C, Hyland A, Messer K. Receptivity to Tobacco Advertising and Susceptibility to Tobacco Products. Pediatrics. 2017 Jun;139(6). pii: e20163353. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3353. — View Citation

Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Herzog TA, Chen Q, Muranaka N, Kehl L, Unger JB. E-cigarette advertising exposure and implicit attitudes among young adult non-smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Jun 1;163:134-40. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.008. Epub 2016 Apr 25. — View Citation

Primack BA, Switzer GE, Dalton MA. Improving measurement of normative beliefs involving smoking among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 May;161(5):434-9. — View Citation

R, W. & A, S. Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. (Sage, 2006).

Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Gibson JJ, Titus-Ernstoff LT, Carusi CP, Swain SD, Heatherton TF, Dalton MA. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005 Nov;116(5):1183-91. — View Citation

Sargent JD, Beach ML, Dalton MA, Mott LA, Tickle JJ, Ahrens MB, Heatherton TF. Effect of seeing tobacco use in films on trying smoking among adolescents: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2001 Dec 15;323(7326):1394-7. — View Citation

Sargent JD, Worth KA, Beach M, Gerrard M, Heatherton TF. Population-Based Assessment of Exposure to Risk Behaviors in Motion Pictures. Commun Methods Meas. 2008 Jan;2(1-2):134-151. — View Citation

Singh T, Agaku IT, Arrazola RA, Marynak KL, Neff LJ, Rolle IT, King BA. Exposure to Advertisements and Electronic Cigarette Use Among US Middle and High School Students. Pediatrics. 2016 May;137(5). pii: e20154155. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4155. — View Citation

Soneji S, Pierce JP, Choi K, Portnoy DB, Margolis KA, Stanton CA, Moore RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Carusi C, Hyland A, Sargent J. Engagement With Online Tobacco Marketing and Associations With Tobacco Product Use Among U.S. Youth. J Adolesc Health. 2017 Jul;61(1):61-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.01.023. Epub 2017 Mar 28. — View Citation

Stautz K, Brown KG, King SE, Shemilt I, Marteau TM. Immediate effects of alcohol marketing communications and media portrayals on consumption and cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jun 9;16:465. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3116-8. Review. — View Citation

Tyas SL, Pederson LL. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tob Control. 1998 Winter;7(4):409-20. Review. — View Citation

US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking - 50 years of progress. (2014).

Villanti AC, Rath JM, Williams VF, Pearson JL, Richardson A, Abrams DB, Niaura RS, Vallone DM. Impact of Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising on Susceptibility and Trial of Electronic Cigarettes and Cigarettes in US Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):1331-9. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv235. Epub 2015 Nov 16. — View Citation

Voigt K. Smoking Norms and the Regulation of E-Cigarettes. Am J Public Health. 2015 Oct;105(10):1967-72. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302764. Epub 2015 Aug 13. — View Citation

Wahl SK, Turner LR, Mermelstein RJ, Flay BR. Adolescents' smoking expectancies: psychometric properties and prediction of behavior change. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005 Aug;7(4):613-23. — View Citation

Wellman RJ, Sugarman DB, DiFranza JR, Winickoff JP. The extent to which tobacco marketing and tobacco use in films contribute to children's use of tobacco: a meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Dec;160(12):1285-96. Review. — View Citation

Wills TA, Knight R, Williams RJ, Pagano I, Sargent JD. Risk factors for exclusive e-cigarette use and dual e-cigarette use and tobacco use in adolescents. Pediatrics. 2015 Jan;135(1):e43-51. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-0760. Epub 2014 Dec 15. — View Citation

Yoshida, E., Peach, J. M., Zanna, M. P. & Spencer, S. J. Not all automatic associations are created equal: How implicit normative evaluations are distinct from implicit attitudes and uniquely predict meaningful behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol 48, 694-706 (2012).

* Note: There are 54 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	change in baseline in implicit positive smoking expectancies, measured by the implicit association test	Scores are measured by recording the amount of time (reaction time) it takes to categorize smoking-related words with positive (e.g., cool) and negative (e.g., cancer) words. Faster reaction times when categorizing smoking-related words with positive words is evidence of higher positive smoking expectancies.	baseline, within 5 minutes post intervention
Primary	Amount of time spent looking at static smoking cues in e-cigarette advertisements	Eye-tracking will be used to measure the amount of time spent looking at static smoking cues in screen shots taken from e-cigarette advertisements. The amount time spent looking at a smoking cue is a measure how much attention was given to the smoking cue. The longer the looking time, the greater amount of attention.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Primary	7-item explicit positive smoking expectancies scale	Scores are measured on a 7-item scale. Positive smoking expectancies will be assessed using the following questions that follow the lead-in, "Please tell me how you feel about the following statements." "I think I would enjoy smoking"; "I think smoking would give me something to do when I'm bored"; "I think smoking would help me deal with problems or stress"; "I think smoking would help me stay thin"; "I think smoking would help me to feel more comfortable at parties"; "I think smoking would be relaxing"; and "I think smoking would make me look older." Responses are yes/no. Responses are coded as "1" for yes and "0" for no. Responses are then summed for a maximum positive smoking expectancy score out of 7. Higher scores mean higher positive smoking expectancies.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Primary	11-item scale that measures social normative beliefs about smoking	This 11-item scale assess social normative beliefs about smoking related to 1) perceived disapproval from family/friends, 2) perceived popularity among successful/elite, and 3) perceived prevalence. Disapproval scale questions are answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 4 = Strongly agree). A total disapproval score (ranging from 1 to 4) is calculated by averaging responses to each question. Higher values indicate a higher disapproval score. Popularity scale questions are answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 4 = Strongly agree). A total popularity score (ranging from 1 to 4) is calculated by averaging responses to each question. Higher values indicate a higher popularity score. Prevalence scale questions are answered using a percent scale from 0 - 100% in 10% increments. A total prevalence scale (from 0 to 100) is calculated by averaging the responses to each question. Higher values indicate a higher prevalence score.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Primary	A 3-item scale that measures adolescent smoking susceptibility	This 3-item instrument is used to predict which never smokers are likely to start smoking by measuring their curiosity to use tobacco products. Item responses are on a 4-point Likert scale (definitely yes, probably yes, probably not, definitely not). To classify a respondent as not susceptible to smoking, the respondent must indicate "definitely not" to all four items. Any other response to any item classifies a respondent as "susceptible."	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Secondary	Amount of time looking at dynamic smoking cues in e-cigarette advertisements	Eye-tracking will be used to measure the total amount of time spent looking in realtime at smoking cues in TV commercials for e-cigarettes. The amount of time looking at smoking cues will be a measure of the amount of attention given to smoking cues. The longer the amount of time spent looking at smoking cues indicates that a greater amount of attention was given to the smoking cues.	During the intervention, approximately 15 minutes post baseline
Secondary	18-item scale that measures character attributes of actors that appeared in the commercials	Character Attributes will be collected using a scale that measures participants beliefs about character attributes using the lead in: "I think [Character Name] is: " using a 5-point Likert (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). There is a total of 6 attributes assessed: 1) smart (smart, intelligent, stupid), 2) successful (successful, achieves goals, gets what he/she wants), 3) attractive (physically attractive, ugly, good-looking), 4) funny (funny, humorous, makes me laugh), 5) respected (respected by others, receives approval, criticized by others), and 6) popular (has lots of friends, well liked, gets support from others). A total score (form 1 to 5) for each scale is calculated by averaging responses for each question within that scale. For each scale, a higher total score indicates higher beliefs about that attribute.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Secondary	5-item scale that measure how much participants wish to be like the actors appearing in the commercials.	This 5-item is scale is used to quantify how much a participant would like to be like an actor appearing in a commercial. Questions are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). A total identification score (from 1 to 25) is calculated by summing the responses to each question. A higher total score indicates a higher level of wishful identification.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Secondary	13-item scale to measure risk perception about cigarette use	This 13-item scale measures risk perceptions associated with cigarette use. Questions are answered using a sliding percent scale from 0 - 100% in 10% increments. A risk perception scale is calculated (from 0 to 100) by averaging the responses to each question. Higher values indicate a higher risk perception.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention
Secondary	13-item scale to Measure risk perception about e-cigarette use	This 13-item scale measures risk perceptions associated with e-cigarette use. Questions are answered using a sliding percent scale from 0 - 100% in 10% increments. A risk perception scale is calculated (from 0 to 100) by averaging the responses to each question. Higher values indicate a higher risk perception.	approximately 30 minutes post intervention