The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the US government to inform the public about the quantities of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. A website can accomplish this task efficiently, but the site's user interface must be usable to benefit the general public. We conducted online experiments with national convenience samples of 1,451 US adult smokers and nonsmokers to examine the impact of four interface display elements: the chemicals, their associated health effects, quantity information, and a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were perceptions of user experience (perceived clarity and usability), motivation (willingness to use), and potential impact (elaboration about the harms of smoking). We found displaying health effects as text with icons, providing quantity information for chemicals (e.g., ranges), and showing a visual risk indicator all improved the user experience of a webpage about chemicals in cigarette smoke (all p < .05). Displaying a combination of familiar and unfamiliar chemicals, providing quantity information for chemicals, and showing a visual risk indicator all improved motivation to use the webpage (all p < .05). Displaying health effects or quantity information increased the potential impact of the webpage (all p < .05). Overall, interface designs displaying health effects of chemicals in cigarette smoke as text with icons and with a visual risk indicator had the greatest impact on the user experience, motivation, and potential impact of the website. Our findings provide guidance for accessible website designs that can inform consumers about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.
Objective The US government requires the public display of information about toxic chemicals in cigarettes and smoke by brand in a way that is understandable and not misleading. We sought to identify risk communication formats that meet these goals. Methods We conducted 3 online experiments with US adult convenience samples (total N = 1866). Participants viewed a webpage displaying information about chemicals in the smoke of a cigarette brand. Experiment 1 varied the chemicals listed and format for their health effects. Experiments 2 and 3 varied the format of chemical quantities and presence/absence of a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were understandable (increasing knowledge) and not misleading (not reinforcing misperceptions). Results Information about chemicals and health effects increased knowledge of these topics by ~30% (p < .001) compared to no information. Quantity format and use of a risk indicator generally did not affect knowledge. The proportion of participants misled ranged from 0% to 92%, depending on measure. Findings indicated 52% would use a website to search for safer cigarettes. Risk communication formats did little to reduce being misled. Conclusions Some risk communication formats successfully increased knowledge of chemicals and health effects. However, the formats did little to reduce the proportion of people misled.
Purpose We sought to identify icons to effectively communicate health harms of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Methods Participants were a convenience sample of 701 U.S. adults. A within-subjects online experiment explored the effects of icon semiotic type: symbolic (arbitrary, most abstract), indexical, and iconic (representative, most concrete). Outcomes were perceived representation, affect toward smoking, elaboration, perceived severity, and perceived effectiveness. Results For not-easy-to-visualize harms of cancer and addiction, symbolic icons received the highest ratings (all p<.001). For easy-to-visualize symptoms of heart attack/stroke, indexical icons received the highest ratings (all p<.001). For easy-to-visualize harm of reproductive organ damage, the iconic image did best (all p<.001). Icon type often had a larger impact among participants with higher health literacy. Conclusions Symbolic icons may be most effective for health effects not easily visualized. Iconic or indexical icons may be more effective for health effects attributable to specific body parts or symptoms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.