ArticlePloS one2025
Waterpipe-specific pictorial health warning labels are effective in reducing subjective measures, behavioral responses and toxicant exposure among young adults: A crossover study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to assess the impact of six evidence-based Waterpipe (WP)-specific pictorial health warnings (HWs) placed on the WP device on puffing behavior, toxicant exposure, subjective smoking experiences, harm perception, motivation and intention to quit among young WP smokers in Florida.
methodsIn a crossover experiment, a total of 100 WP smokers completed two 45-minute ad-libitum WP smoking sessions (without HW vs. with HW on the device) after a 12-hour abstinence. Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (eCO) was measured before and after each session, while puff topography was recorded throughout the smoking session. Additionally, participants completed survey questionnaires before and after the WP smoking sessions to assess subjective smoking experiences, harm perception, motivation to quit, and intention to quit.
resultsStudy participants had a mean age of 22.5 years (SD = 3.4), and most (56.6%) were male.The mean e-CO boost (34.16 vs. 26.58) (p = 0.006) was higher in the no-HW condition compared to the HW condition. Differences were also observed between the two conditions for puff topography. For example, median smoking time (46.4 min vs 45.3 min; p < 0.001), median puffing time (4.35 min vs. 4.22 min; 0.004), average puff duration (3.13 sec vs. 2.90 sec; 0.029), and the total number of puffs (95.0 vs. 84.0; 0.039) were lower in the HW compared to no-HW conditions. Subjective measures also demonstrated differences between the two conditions, including greater suppression of the urge to smoke (14.98 vs. 7.51; p < 0.001), reduced puff liking (4.01 vs. 3.63; p = 0.010), and reduced puff satisfaction (4.11 vs. 3.65; p = 0.009) following exposure to HW compared to no-HW conditions. Motivation to quit (p = 0.058), intention to quit (p = 0.659), and harm perception (p = 0.301) increased after smoking the WP with HW; however these were not statistically significant.
conclusionUsing an evidence-based approach, a large sample size for clinical studies, and an efficient and sensitive within-subject design, this study demonstrates that pictorial HWs on WP devices effectively reduce smoking behavior, toxicant exposure, and subjective experiences while increasing harm perception, intention, and motivation to quit WP smoking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.