CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

American Spirit Pack Descriptors and Perceptions of Harm: A Crowdsourced Comparison of Modified Packs

Pearson, Jennifer L., Richardson, Amanda, Feirman, Shari P., Villanti, Andrea C., Cantrell, Jennifer, Cohn, Amy, Tacelosky, Michael, Kirchner, Thomas R.·2016·Nicotine & Tobacco Research
DOI 10.1093/ntr/ntw097
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration issued warnings to three tobacco manufacturers who label their cigarettes as "additive-free" and/or "natural" on the grounds that they make unauthorized reduced risk claims. The goal of this study was to examine US adults' perceptions of three American Spirit (AS) pack descriptors ("Made with Organic Tobacco," "100% Additive-Free," and "100% US Grown Tobacco") to assess if they communicate reduced risk. Methods In September 2012, three cross-sectional surveys were posted on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Adult participants evaluated the relative harm of a Marlboro Red pack versus three different AS packs with the descriptors "Made with Organic Tobacco," "100% Additive-Free," or "100% US Grown Tobacco" (Survey 1; n = 461); a Marlboro Red pack versus these AS packs modified to exclude descriptors (Survey 2; n = 857); and unmodified versus modified AS pack images (Survey 3; n = 1001). Results The majority of Survey 1 participants rated the unmodified AS packs as less harmful than the Marlboro Red pack; 35.4%-58.8% of Survey 2 participants also rated the modified (no claims) packs as less harmful than Marlboro Red. In these surveys, prior use of AS cigarettes was associated with reduced perceptions of risk (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.59-2.40). "Made with Organic Tobacco" and "100% Additive-Free" were associated with reduced perceptions of risk when comparing the modified versus the unmodified AS packs (Survey 3). Conclusions Data s…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntw097

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1080/14622200701239548 · DOI
  2. 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i18 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1136/tc.9.2.136 · DOI
  4. Shiffman, 2001, Effect of health messages about “light” and “ultra light” cigarettes on beliefs and quitting intent, Tob Control, 10, i24, 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i24 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/tc.2007.023812 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.019 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03533.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.010 · DOI
  9. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.072785 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/tc.2006.019638 · DOI
  11. 10.1093/phr/114.6.522 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.016 · DOI
  13. Agaku, 2014, Cigarette design and marketing features are associated with increased smoking susceptibility and perception of reduced harm among smokers in 27 EU countries, Tob Control, 24, e233, 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051922 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/1462220021000018498 · DOI
  15. Byron MJ Baig SA Moracco KE Brewer NT . Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers. Tob Control [published online ahead of print December 1, 2015]. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-05256. · DOI
  16. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008813 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10508-014-0413-0 · DOI
  18. 10.2196/resprot.3277 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.016 · DOI
  20. 10.1371/journal.pone.0116946 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s13142-014-0298-4 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/0963721414531598 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hoek J Gendall P Eckert C Kemper J Louviere J . Effects of brand variants on smokers’ choice behaviours and risk perceptions [published online ahead of print March 25, 2015]. Tob Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-05209. · DOI
  24. 10.1093/eurpub/ckp122 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/pubmed/fdp066 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00004-X · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03402.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pearson, J. L., Richardson, A., Feirman, S. P., Villanti, A. C., Cantrell, J., Cohn, A., Tacelosky, M., & Kirchner, T. R.
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-05-10
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
1749-1756
ISSN
  • 1462-2203
  • 1469-994X
DOI
10.1093/ntr/ntw097
Cited by
56
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review