Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, United States
NCT Number: NCT04936724
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of cigarette pictorial warning label content (lesser-known vs well-known risks) on visual engagement, recall, and knowledge of tobacco use harms.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me21 year–65 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, United States
This laboratory-based study will aim to enroll 120 current cigarette users to complete a 1-day randomized, parallel design protocol.
The participants will be randomized to one of two conditions, pictorial warning labels (PWLs) with well-known or lesser-known tobacco harms. After completing a baseline questionnaire, the participants will view 4 warning labels from the assigned group and complete a follow-up questionnaire. Eye-tracking will provide data on visual processing of the warning labels and the effect of these labels on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about smoking will be supplemented by self-report.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Participants will be randomized to one of two conditions and will view 4 pictorial warning labels from the assigned group for an eye-tracking task.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
We defined areas of interest (AOIs) encompassing the image and text portions of each PWL. For each AOI, we examined attention measures of latency (time until the first fixation in the AOI; i.e., how quickly attention is drawn to the AOI), latency duration (length of the first fixation; i.e., how long the AOI is initially viewed), and total fixation time (sum of all fixations in the AOI; i.e., overall viewing allocation, accounting for viewing the same AOI multiple times). Analyses examined the mean of each outcome across the four PWLs within each condition.
Time frame: Day 1
Participants will view 11 warning label images and would be required to identify the warning label images they saw during their eye tracking portion of the session. This outcome measure (Recall -Image) was assessed in a percentage unit of measure. The percentages are not whole numbers for these items because it's the mean % correct for the condition, or the average percent correct across the four images for the group. The results in the Outcome Measure Data table demonstrate the percentage of participants who correctly identified the images from their condition (4 of the 11 images presented to participants were from their randomized condition; A or B).
Time frame: Day 1
Participants will view 11 warning label text statements and would be required to identify the warning label text statements they saw during their eye tracking portion of the session. This outcome measure (Recall -Text) was assessed in a percentage unit of measure. The percentages are not whole numbers for these items because it's the mean % correct for the condition, or the average percent correct across the four images for the group. The results in the Outcome Measure Data table demonstrate the percentage of participants who correctly identified the text statements from their condition (4 of the 11 images presented to participants were from their randomized condition; A or B).
Time frame: Day 1
All participants will select harms caused by tobacco from a list of health issues and diseases, before as well as after viewing the warning labels on the screen. Pre and post warning label exposure knowledge of smoking harms were assessed by using an exploratory scale that asked participants if cigarette smoking caused a list of 18 health conditions with a 5-point response scale, (1=definitely yes 2= probably yes, 3 = might or might not, 4 = probably not, 5 = definitely not).
Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Medicine
Other
Evaluation of the New FDA Warning Labels: Does Highlighting Lesser Known Harms of Tobacco Use Increase Attention, Recall and Knowledge of Tobacco Harms for Young Adults?
Acronym: FLT
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT05683821
Behavior, Cigarette Smoking
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03083353
Behavior, Chemically-Induced Disorders
Austin, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03113136
Behavior, Chemically-Induced Disorders
Columbus, Ohio, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03496077
Behavior, Chemically-Induced Disorders
Farmington, Connecticut, United States
View Trial Details