Evidence mapPaperPMID 40708371Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026

Interventions to change vaping harm perceptions and associations between harm perceptions and vaping and smoking behaviours: A systematic review.

Katherine East, Erikas Simonavičius, Eve V Taylor, Leonie Brose, Deborah Robson, Ann McNeill

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Changes in harm perceptions of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes following the announcement of the disposable vape ban in Great Britain.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katherine EastDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton and University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9083-2131
Erikas SimonavičiusNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6323-3659
Eve V TaylorNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3987-4760
Leonie BroseNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6503-6854
Deborah RobsonNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6447-3523
Ann McNeillNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-4000

Funding

Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation Among Youth in the US, Canada, and England: Methods to Predict Uptake and Policy EfficacyP01CA200512 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI HAMMOND, DAVID · 2016 to 2025
$25.3M
Cancer Research UK PICCTR-2024/100001Cancer Research UK RE12936King's College LondonNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNCI NIH HHS P01 CA200512NIH HHS 1P01CA200512NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchResearch EnglandSociety for the Study of Addiction Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo synthesize and describe the evidence from among young people and adults to assess: (i) what interventions have been effective in changing vaping harm perceptions; and (ii) to what extent vaping harm perceptions predict any changes in vaping and smoking behaviours.

methodsSystematic review searching five databases (Embase, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus) from January 2007 to January 2023. Eligible studies reported quantitative data with >1 time point among young people (sample majority aged <18 years) or adults (sample majority aged ≥18 years). Interventions were considered if they communicated vaping harms, categorized as relative (vaping vs smoking) or absolute (vaping vs not vaping). Outcomes were changes in: (i) vaping (absolute, relative) or nicotine harm perceptions; (ii) vaping or smoking behaviours. Evidence was synthesized narratively.

resultsEighty-five articles were included, of which 46 assessed interventions to change vaping harm perceptions and 39 assessed associations between harm perceptions and subsequent vaping/smoking behaviours. All studies among young people and most among adults were from the USA. Interventions aimed at young people typically communicated that vaping and nicotine are harmful/addictive (absolute harms), often in the form of educational programmes and media campaigns. Interventions aimed at adults typically communicated that vaping is harmful but less harmful than smoking (relative harms), often via written materials and educational workshops. In addition to methodological and analytical heterogeneity, risk of bias was high; hence findings should be interpreted with caution. Generally, interventions appeared to be effective in changing perceptions that reflected the intervention content among young people (12/14 studies) and adults (24/32 studies), at least in the short-term (38/46 studies only assessed the outcome pre- and immediately post-intervention). Interventions communicating that vaping is harmful and addictive (absolute harms) increased perceptions that vaping is harmful and addictive among young people (12/14) and adults (16/23 studies) and also increased the misperception that vaping is as harmful as smoking (relative harm) among young people (2/2 studies) and adults (5/8 studies). There was also some evidence that both absolute and relative harm perceptions predicted vaping and smoking behaviours, such that perceiving vaping as harmful deterred vaping among both young people (8/9 studies) and adults (4/7 studies), while misperceiving vaping as equally/more harmful than smoking prevented adults from quitting smoking (5/6 studies).

conclusionsInterventions to change vaping harm perceptions appear to be effective. Vaping harm perceptions appear to predict vaping and smoking behaviours.

Indexed as

SmokingVapingAdolescentAdultHumansYoung Adultadultsperceptionssmokingsystematic reviewvapingyoung people

Identifiers

PMID40708371
PMCPMC12710839

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.