Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Effect of e-cigarette advertisements and antismoking messages on explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarette smoking in 18–65-year-olds: a randomised controlled study protocol
  1. Paula Booth,
  2. Ian P Albery,
  3. Daniel Frings
  1. Division of Psychology, School of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr. Paula Booth; p.booth{at}uel.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Since the advent of e-cigarettes, e-cigarette advertising has escalated and companies are able to use marketing strategies that are not permissible for tobacco products. Research into the effect of e-cigarette advertising on attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes is in its infancy. To date, no research has compared indirect (implicit) measures of attitude towards e-cigarettes with direct (explicit) measures. Furthermore, little consideration has been given to how viewing online advertisements may have an effect on attitudes towards e-cigarettes or how positive attitudes to e-cigarettes may undermine antismoking public health messages. The objectives of this study are to investigate (1) the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, (2) the effect of e-cigarette advertising on these attitudes and (3) the effect of these attitudes on the efficacy of antismoking health messages.

Methods and analysis In experiment 1 an analysis of covariance will be conducted to determine whether viewing an e-cigarette advertisement, compared with a neutral image, has an effect on implicit or explicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, and if these attitudes differ between smokers, vapers and non-smokers aged 18 - 25 years. In experiment 2, moderation analysis will be conducted to assess whether attitudes towards e-cigarettes moderate the psychological efficacy of antismoking health messages in participants aged 18–65 years. In each experiment, attitudes will be measured preintervention and postintervention and 1 week later (n=150) in participants who are smokers (n=50), vapers (n=50) or non-smokers (n=50).

Ethics and dissemination Approval for this study has been given by the London South Bank University’s (LSBU) Research Ethics Committee. The findings of these studies will be submitted for publication and disseminated via conferences. The results will be integrated into course provision for practitioners training at LSBU.

  • E-cigarettes
  • Attitudes
  • Tobacco
  • Advertisements
  • Anti-Smoking Messages

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors DF and IPA conceptualised and designed the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; PB drafted the initial manuscript and will administer the testing, data collection and statistical analysis. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

  • Funding This work was supported by Cancer Research UK grant number C54622/A20485.

  • Competing interests DF and IPA are both investigators on a randomised controlled trial funded by Allen Carr's Easyway. This trial is comparing the Allen Carr's Easway stop-smoking method with local NHS 1-1 stop smoking counselling service. The team is contractually free to publish the results regardless of the study outcome. They have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

  • Patient consent The study does not recruit patients.

  • Ethics approval London South Bank University Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. Owing to a scripting error, some of the publisher names in the references were replaced with 'BMJ Publishing Group'. This only affected the full text version, not the PDF. We have since corrected these errors and the correct publishers have been inserted into the references.