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.
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.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
70
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.
Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Attention: Latency (Time Until First Fixation) for Image
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
Attention: Latency (Time Until First Fixation) for Text
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
Attention: Latency Duration (Time of Fixation) for Image
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
Attention: Latency Duration (Time of Fixation) for Text
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.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Day 1
Attention: Total Fixation Time for Image
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
Attention: Total Fixation Time for Text
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
Recall: Participants Ability to Recall Condition Image
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
Recall: Participants Ability to Recall Condition Text
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
Knowledge of Smoking Harms
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).
Time frame: Day 1