Trial Outcomes & Findings for Responses to Message Source and Presentation Using Psychophysiology (NCT NCT06269003)

Last Updated: 2025-08-01

Results Overview

Visual attention was assessed by measuring dwell time, which is the length of time participants spent on looking at the specific areas of interest (AOIs) collected in miliseconds. Dwell time values were collected for 18 messages, and aggregated to provide the average dwell time scores for each arm. This was done for each vaping status (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Higher dwell time scores indicate higher visual attention, indicating better message outcomes.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

Target enrollment

112 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

The entire duration of message from beginning of its delivery to the completion of viewing, up to 45 minutes.

Results posted on

2025-08-01

Participant Flow

Participants were recruited based on their age (18-24 years old), vaping status (past-30-day vaping and/susceptible to vaping), location (living in the US) between January 2024 to June 2024. The first participant was enrolled in February 18, 2024, and the last participant was enrolled in June 10, 2024.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure	Expert, One-sided Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Overall Study STARTED	28	28	28	28
Overall Study COMPLETED	28	28	27	28
Overall Study NOT COMPLETED	0	0	1	0

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure	Expert, One-sided Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Overall Study One participant was excluded for being outside the eligible age range.	0	0	1	0

Baseline Characteristics

Responses to Message Source and Presentation Using Psychophysiology

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=28 Participants Participants first saw a brief description of a expert source. Then they viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=27 Participants Participants first saw a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants first saw a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants first saw a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Total n=111 Participants Total of all reporting groups
Age, Continuous	22.25 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.40 • n=5 Participants	21.59 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.12 • n=7 Participants	21.57 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.75 • n=5 Participants	21.82 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.85 • n=4 Participants	21.81 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.79 • n=21 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized Female	14 Participants n=5 Participants	21 Participants n=7 Participants	17 Participants n=5 Participants	18 Participants n=4 Participants	70 Participants n=21 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized Male	11 Participants n=5 Participants	4 Participants n=7 Participants	9 Participants n=5 Participants	6 Participants n=4 Participants	30 Participants n=21 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized Others	3 Participants n=5 Participants	2 Participants n=7 Participants	2 Participants n=5 Participants	4 Participants n=4 Participants	11 Participants n=21 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino	3 Participants n=5 Participants	5 Participants n=7 Participants	7 Participants n=5 Participants	3 Participants n=4 Participants	18 Participants n=21 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino	25 Participants n=5 Participants	22 Participants n=7 Participants	21 Participants n=5 Participants	25 Participants n=4 Participants	93 Participants n=21 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Asian	3 Participants n=5 Participants	7 Participants n=7 Participants	4 Participants n=5 Participants	6 Participants n=4 Participants	20 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American	1 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	1 Participants n=5 Participants	3 Participants n=4 Participants	5 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) White	19 Participants n=5 Participants	17 Participants n=7 Participants	17 Participants n=5 Participants	14 Participants n=4 Participants	67 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race	2 Participants n=5 Participants	2 Participants n=7 Participants	2 Participants n=5 Participants	1 Participants n=4 Participants	7 Participants n=21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	3 Participants n=5 Participants	1 Participants n=7 Participants	4 Participants n=5 Participants	4 Participants n=4 Participants	12 Participants n=21 Participants
Region of Enrollment United States	28 Participants n=5 Participants	27 Participants n=7 Participants	28 Participants n=5 Participants	28 Participants n=4 Participants	111 Participants n=21 Participants
Vaping Status Current vaping	15 Participants n=5 Participants	14 Participants n=7 Participants	16 Participants n=5 Participants	16 Participants n=4 Participants	61 Participants n=21 Participants
Vaping Status Susceptible to vaping	13 Participants n=5 Participants	13 Participants n=7 Participants	12 Participants n=5 Participants	12 Participants n=4 Participants	50 Participants n=21 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: The entire duration of message from beginning of its delivery to the completion of viewing, up to 45 minutes.

Population: The data were stratified based on participants' vaping status ("Current vapers" and "Susceptible non-vapers"). The Number of Participants Analyzed for each row reflects the actual number of participants within that vaping status group who were included in the analysis. The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the total number of both subgroups. Any differences have been clarified to specify participant numbers at the row level.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=27 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Visual Attention Current vapers	6217.016667 milliseconds Standard Deviation 1278.03706	6333.70375 milliseconds Standard Deviation 909.82927	6567.725714 milliseconds Standard Deviation 934.62436	6667.185625 milliseconds Standard Deviation 633.14744
Visual Attention Susceptible non-vapers	6750.67 milliseconds Standard Deviation 798.60759	6423.3025 milliseconds Standard Deviation 1069.16916	6701.923077 milliseconds Standard Deviation 604.30866	6231.6275 milliseconds Standard Deviation 933.71167

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline and immediately after viewing all the messages (approximately 45 minutes).

Population: n=41 were removed from analysis due to poor quality. The data were stratified based on participants' vaping status ("Current vapers" and "Susceptible non-vapers"). The Number of Participants Analyzed for each row reflects the actual number of participants within that vaping status group who were included in the analysis. The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the total number of both subgroups. Any differences have been clarified to specify participant numbers at the row level.

Heart rate values were collected in beats per minute (BPM) on a per-second basis during the presentation of each 18 distinct messages as well as during the immediately preceding black screen (baseline) for each message. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize changes in the BPM values during the message exposure period by comparing the BPM values collected during each message second to the BPM values collected during the immediately preceding baseline period. These change scores were then averaged across all messages within each study arm to generate a mean BPM value per condition, and this was done for each vaping status (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Lower BPM values reflect greater cognitive response, therefore indicate better message outcomes.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=20 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=18 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=16 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=16 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Allocation of Cognitive Resources Current vapers	-4.885 Beats per minute Standard Error 1.108	-4.098 Beats per minute Standard Error 1.324	-2.079 Beats per minute Standard Error 1.239	-1.652 Beats per minute Standard Error 1.168
Allocation of Cognitive Resources Susceptible non-vapers	-3.723 Beats per minute Standard Error 0.834	-3.444 Beats per minute Standard Error 0.834	-3.232 Beats per minute Standard Error 0.945	-4.696 Beats per minute Standard Error 1.119

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline and immediately after viewing all the messages (approximately 45 minutes).

Population: n=29 were removed from analysis due to poor quality. The data were stratified based on participants' vaping status ("Current vapers" and "Susceptible non-vapers"). The Number of Participants Analyzed for each row reflects the actual number of participants within that vaping status group who were included in the analysis. The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the total number of both subgroups. Any differences have been clarified to specify participant numbers at the row level.

Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) values were recorded in microsiemens on a per-second basis during the presentation of each 18 distinct messages as well as during the immediately preceding black screen (baseline) for each message. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize changes in GSR values by comparing each message response to its preceding baseline period. These change scores were then averaged across all messages within each study arm to generate a mean GSR score per condition, and this was done for each vaping status group (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Higher GSR values reflect greater physiological arousal, and indicate better message outcomes.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=21 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=21 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=19 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=21 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Arousal Current vapers	17.225 microsiemens Standard Error 272.990	597.772 microsiemens Standard Error 272.990	-49.682 microsiemens Standard Error 285.129	267.135 microsiemens Standard Error 272.990
Arousal Susceptible non-vapers	215.883 microsiemens Standard Error 372.223	-9.867 microsiemens Standard Error 372.223	526.856 microsiemens Standard Error 394.802	-157.043 microsiemens Standard Error 372.223

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: After exposure to all messages, approximately up to 45 minutes.

Participants' self-reported vaping attitudes were measured by using a five-point bipolar scale using 7 subscale items assessing whether participants thought vaping was enjoyable, healthy, safe, fun, smart, cool, and attractive on a scale from 1 (negative attitudes) to 5 (positive attitudes). Items were summed and averaged to create a single composite score, and this was done for each arm for each vaping status. Higher scores indicate more positive e-cigarette attitudes, therefore worse outcomes.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=27 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Attitudes Current vapers	1.9619 score on a scale Standard Deviation .45326	2.1771 score on a scale Standard Deviation .54931	2.1480 score on a scale Standard Deviation .62299	1.8824 score on a scale Standard Deviation .39817
Attitudes Susceptible non-vapers	1.6593 score on a scale Standard Deviation .40632	1.5833 score on a scale Standard Deviation .48141	1.6044 score on a scale Standard Deviation .51228	1.8571 score on a scale Standard Deviation .40913

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: After exposure to all messages, approximately up to 45 minutes.

Participants' vaping intentions was measured by using a 3 subscale items assessing participants' intentions to vape: soon/anytime during the next year/would use offered by one of their best friends, on a scale from 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely yes). Items were summed and averaged to create a single composite score. This was done for each vaping status (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Higher scores indicate greater vaping intentions, therefore indicating worse outcome.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Expert, One-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Expert, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an expert source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, One-sided n=27 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of a peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that discussed only the health harms of e-cigarette use. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.	Peer, Two-sided n=28 Participants Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition were first presented with a brief description of an peer source. They then viewed an e-cigarette message that acknowledged both the potential benefits of e-cigarette use and the associated health risks. This sequence was repeated 18 times during a single study visit.
Behavioral Intentions Current vapers	2.7556 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.98776	3.0313 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.87817	3.0238 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.90075	2.5833 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.96992
Behavioral Intentions Susceptible non-vapers	1.3333 score on a scale Standard Deviation .49065	1.0278 score on a scale Standard Deviation .09623	1.2564 score on a scale Standard Deviation .47442	1.3056 score on a scale Standard Deviation .30011

Adverse Events

Expert 1-sided

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Expert 2-sided

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Peer 1-sided

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Peer 2-sided

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Donghee Nicole Lee, Assistant Professor

University of Hawaii Cancer Center

Phone: 8084418184

Email: [email protected]

Results disclosure agreements

Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
Publication restrictions are in place