Hookah Smoking, Reactions to Warnings
Conditions
Keywords
Hookah, Shisha, Tobacco, Narghile
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to help us better understand what kinds of waterpipe tobacco advertisements appeal to young adults as well as to help evaluate and create health warnings that can be placed on waterpipe tobacco advertisements to inform young adults of the risks associated with smoking hookah tobacco.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAds Only
Participants will view 2 ads without replacement.
BEHAVIORALAds with text-only health warning labels (HWLs)
Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different ad.
BEHAVIORALAds with text + graphic health warning labels (HWLs)
Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text + graphic HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different ad.
Sponsors
Duke University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 34 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Young adults who are susceptible to or who are current tobacco smokers (which is defined as at least once in the past month, and using hookah tobacco on at least a monthly basis). * Must have Internet access for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and have a Turkprime account. * English speaker
Exclusion criteria
* Anyone who is not susceptible to waterpipe tobacco smoking or is not a current waterpipe tobacco smoker * Anyone who does not have Internet access or a Turkprime account
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Ad Effect on Product Purchase | up to 45 minutes | Participants who completed the social allure study were asked, How likely are you to buy the product in the ad?. Response options were: 1=No chance, 2=Very unlikely, 3=Unlikely, 4=Moderately likely, 5=Likely, 6=Very Likely, and 7=Certain to happen. Means scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the study participant would have a higher probability of purchasing the product depicted in the ad. |
| Reactance to Ads | up to 45 minutes | Two items from the University of North Carolina (UNC) short reactance scale were asked from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree: This ad is trying to manipulate me, and This ad annoys me. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores can range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflect higher reactance, meaning that participants felt more reactance (e.g., felt their freedoms were being taken away). |
| Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | up to 45 minutes | Participants used a three-item measure as a gestalt assessment of how well an ad dissuaded WTS. The three items, rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree were: This ad discourages me from wanting to smoke waterpipe tobacco, This ad makes me concerned about the health effects of smoking waterpipe tobacco, and This ad makes smoking waterpipe tobacco seem unpleasant to me. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean score could ranged from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the ad was more effective at dissuading WTS. |
| Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | up to 45 minutes | Participants were asked, To what extent did this ad affect your desire to smoke waterpipe tobacco? from 1=Reduced my desire a lot to 7=Increased my desire a lot. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the ad increased a participant's desire to smoke waterpipe tobacco. |
| Ad Effect on Event Participation | up to 45 minutes | Participants who completed the social allure study were asked, If the activities in the ad were to take place in a location near you, how likely are you to participate in those activities?. Response options were: 1=No chance, 2=Very unlikely, 3=Unlikely, 4=Moderately likely, 5=Likely, 6=Very Likely, and 7=Certain to happen. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects a higher probability that the participant would participate in the event depicted in the ad. |
| Emotional Reactions to Ads | up to 45 minutes | Participants rated on 7-point bipolar scales the extent each ad made them feel not at all anxious/very anxious, not at all worried/very worried, not at all fearful/very fearful and good /bad. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores range from 1 to 7 where higher mean values represent more negative emotional reactions to viewing the ad. |
| Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | up to 45 minutes | Participant rated on 9-point bipolar scale an ad's portrayal of WTS. The five attributes that tapped cognitions were: safe/unsafe, healthy/unhealthy, useful/useless, harmful/beneficial, and wise/foolish. The five attributes that captured affect were: pleasant/unpleasant, nice/nasty, enjoyable/not enjoyable, satisfying/unsatisfying, gratifying/revolting. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean scores could range from 1 to 7 where a higher mean score reflects a more negative attitude towards WTS. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | up to 45 minutes | Four 7-point bipolar scales tapped views on WTS: negative/positive, dislike/like, bad/good, undesirable/desirable. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean scores range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflect a more positive overall attitudes towards smoking waterpipe tobacco. |
| Urge to Smoke | up to 45 minutes | Assessed from 1=Not at all strong to 7=Extremely strong by, How strong is your urge to smoke waterpipe tobacco right now? Mean scores range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects the participant had a stronger urge to smoke waterpipe tobacco. |
| Avoidance / Acceptance of Health Warnings as Measured by Eye Tracking | up to one hour | Participants were going to be positioned to view several ads, and with an apparatus, track their visual movements. |
| Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | up to 45 minutes | Participants responded to three questions tapping perceived personal risk, What do you think is your chance of getting a serious smoking-related disease in your lifetime, such as cancer, lung disease or heart disease, if you do not quit waterpipe tobacco smoking? (1=No chance to 7=Certain to happen), How worried are you about getting a serious smoking-related disease in your lifetime, such as cancer, lung disease, or heart disease, if you do not quit waterpipe tobacco smoking? (1=Not at all worried to 7=Extremely worried, and Your 'gut feeling' tells you that you are hurting your health when you smoke waterpipe tobacco? (1=Strongly disagree to 7=Strongly agree). Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects a higher overall belief that one is at higher risk for the negative health effects of smoking waterpipe tobacco. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Pre-assignment details
Participants were randomized to one of three health warning label (HWL) arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: 1) ads only, 2) ads with text HWLs only, and 3) ads with text + graphic HWLs within the Social Allure Ads and Product Ads groups.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Participants were randomized to one of three health warning label (HWL) arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: 1) ads only, 2) ads with text HWLs only, and 3) ads with text + graphic HWLs within the Social Allure Ads group.
Behavioral: Ads Only Participants will view 2 ads without replacement. Behavioral: Ads with text-only health warning labels (HWLs) Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four social allure ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different social allure ad.
Behavioral: Ads with text + graphic health warning labels (HWLs) Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text + graphic HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four social allure ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different social allure ad. | 1,500 |
| Product Ads Participants were randomized to one of three health warning label (HWL) arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: 1) ads only, 2) ads with text HWLs only, and 3) ads with text + graphic HWLs within the Product Ads group.
Behavioral: Ads Only Participants will view 2 ads without replacement. Behavioral: Ads with text-only health warning labels (HWLs) Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four product ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different product ad.
Behavioral: Ads with text + graphic health warning labels (HWLs) Participants will view HWLs in one of four domains: long- and short-term health events, toxicants, and addiction; participants viewed two HWLs within each domain - there were two HWLs per domain. The text + graphic HWLs were placed randomly on two ads out of the possible four product ad themes without replacement. Thus, participants viewed two HWLs within the same domain, with each warning being placed on a different product ad. | 1,004 |
| Total | 2,504 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 | FG004 | FG005 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Attempted to take the survey as both a smoker and a susceptible non-smoker. | 17 | 16 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 13 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Social Allure Ads | Total | Product Ads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 24.73 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.49 | 24.71 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.48 | 24.67 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.46 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 247 Participants | 414 Participants | 167 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 1232 Participants | 2042 Participants | 810 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 21 Participants | 48 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized American Indian or Alaska Native | 24 Participants | 36 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian | 168 Participants | 272 Participants | 104 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black or African American | 165 Participants | 275 Participants | 110 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Middle Eastern | 17 Participants | 29 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized More than one race | 90 Participants | 145 Participants | 55 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 5 Participants | 6 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Unknown or Not Reported | 21 Participants | 48 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 1010 Participants | 1693 Participants | 683 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 1500 Participants | 2504 Participants | 1004 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 711 Participants | 1234 Participants | 523 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 789 Participants | 1270 Participants | 481 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk | EG005 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 300 | 0 / 602 | 0 / 598 | 0 / 201 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 401 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 300 | 0 / 602 | 0 / 598 | 0 / 201 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 401 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 300 | 0 / 602 | 0 / 598 | 0 / 201 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 401 |
Outcome results
Primary
Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke
Participants were asked, To what extent did this ad affect your desire to smoke waterpipe tobacco? from 1=Reduced my desire a lot to 7=Increased my desire a lot. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the ad increased a participant's desire to smoke waterpipe tobacco.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 4.37 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 4.07 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 3.89 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Product Ads Only | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 4.70 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 4.03 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Desire to Smoke | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Primary
Ad Effect on Event Participation
Participants who completed the social allure study were asked, If the activities in the ad were to take place in a location near you, how likely are you to participate in those activities?. Response options were: 1=No chance, 2=Very unlikely, 3=Unlikely, 4=Moderately likely, 5=Likely, 6=Very Likely, and 7=Certain to happen. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects a higher probability that the participant would participate in the event depicted in the ad.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Only applicable to social allure ad participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Ad Effect on Event Participation | 3.58 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.09 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Event Participation | 3.52 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Event Participation | 3.43 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
Primary
Ad Effect on Product Purchase
Participants who completed the social allure study were asked, How likely are you to buy the product in the ad?. Response options were: 1=No chance, 2=Very unlikely, 3=Unlikely, 4=Moderately likely, 5=Likely, 6=Very Likely, and 7=Certain to happen. Means scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the study participant would have a higher probability of purchasing the product depicted in the ad.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Only applicable to product ad participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product Ads Only | Ad Effect on Product Purchase | 4.04 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.13 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Product Purchase | 3.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.09 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Ad Effect on Product Purchase | 3.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.09 |
Primary
Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire
Participant rated on 9-point bipolar scale an ad's portrayal of WTS. The five attributes that tapped cognitions were: safe/unsafe, healthy/unhealthy, useful/useless, harmful/beneficial, and wise/foolish. The five attributes that captured affect were: pleasant/unpleasant, nice/nasty, enjoyable/not enjoyable, satisfying/unsatisfying, gratifying/revolting. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean scores could range from 1 to 7 where a higher mean score reflects a more negative attitude towards WTS.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.59 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.84 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Product Ads Only | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 3.87 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.88 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Attitudes Toward Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) as Measured by Questionnaire | 5.31 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Primary
Emotional Reactions to Ads
Participants rated on 7-point bipolar scales the extent each ad made them feel not at all anxious/very anxious, not at all worried/very worried, not at all fearful/very fearful and good /bad. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores range from 1 to 7 where higher mean values represent more negative emotional reactions to viewing the ad.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 2.81 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 3.46 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 3.74 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Product Ads Only | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 2.83 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Emotional Reactions to Ads | 4.03 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Primary
Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings
Participants used a three-item measure as a gestalt assessment of how well an ad dissuaded WTS. The three items, rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree were: This ad discourages me from wanting to smoke waterpipe tobacco, This ad makes me concerned about the health effects of smoking waterpipe tobacco, and This ad makes smoking waterpipe tobacco seem unpleasant to me. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean score could ranged from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects that the ad was more effective at dissuading WTS.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 2.89 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.09 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 3.88 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 4.13 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Product Ads Only | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 3.09 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.11 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 4.15 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Effectiveness of Health Warnings | 4.46 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Primary
Reactance to Ads
Two items from the University of North Carolina (UNC) short reactance scale were asked from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree: This ad is trying to manipulate me, and This ad annoys me. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores can range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflect higher reactance, meaning that participants felt more reactance (e.g., felt their freedoms were being taken away).
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Reactance to Ads | 3.87 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Reactance to Ads | 3.99 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Reactance to Ads | 3.91 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Product Ads Only | Reactance to Ads | 3.47 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Reactance to Ads | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Reactance to Ads | 3.82 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Secondary
Avoidance / Acceptance of Health Warnings as Measured by Eye Tracking
Participants were going to be positioned to view several ads, and with an apparatus, track their visual movements.
Time frame: up to one hour
Population: This outcome measure required participants meeting in person with a lab researcher. However, due to COVID, where a policy was implemented on campus to not allow in-person visits for research studies, this was not possible. Hence, no data were collected and will not be collected in the future.
Secondary
Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS)
Four 7-point bipolar scales tapped views on WTS: negative/positive, dislike/like, bad/good, undesirable/desirable. Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. The mean scores range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflect a more positive overall attitudes towards smoking waterpipe tobacco.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 4.14 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 3.83 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 3.61 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads Only | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 4.39 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 3.85 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Global Attitude on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (WTS) | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.09 |
Secondary
Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire
Participants responded to three questions tapping perceived personal risk, What do you think is your chance of getting a serious smoking-related disease in your lifetime, such as cancer, lung disease or heart disease, if you do not quit waterpipe tobacco smoking? (1=No chance to 7=Certain to happen), How worried are you about getting a serious smoking-related disease in your lifetime, such as cancer, lung disease, or heart disease, if you do not quit waterpipe tobacco smoking? (1=Not at all worried to 7=Extremely worried, and Your 'gut feeling' tells you that you are hurting your health when you smoke waterpipe tobacco? (1=Strongly disagree to 7=Strongly agree). Reported as a composite score created by averaging the items. Mean scores could range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects a higher overall belief that one is at higher risk for the negative health effects of smoking waterpipe tobacco.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.71 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.93 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 5.03 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Product Ads Only | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.73 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.98 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Perceived Risk as Measured by Questionnaire | 4.90 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Secondary
Urge to Smoke
Assessed from 1=Not at all strong to 7=Extremely strong by, How strong is your urge to smoke waterpipe tobacco right now? Mean scores range from 1 to 7. A higher mean score reflects the participant had a stronger urge to smoke waterpipe tobacco.
Time frame: up to 45 minutes
Population: Participants who completed the study.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Allure Ads Only | Urge to Smoke | 3.34 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Urge to Smoke | 3.28 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Social Allure Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Urge to Smoke | 3.06 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Product Ads Only | Urge to Smoke | 3.82 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.14 |
| Product Ads With Text-only Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Urge to Smoke | 3.29 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Product Ads With Text + Graphic Health Warning Labels (HWLs) | Urge to Smoke | 3.27 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |