Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1K99CA281094-01A1 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Cancer Institute (NCI) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to use crowdsourcing to test the effects of a message source (expert and peer) and message presentation types (one-sided and two-sided) to identify the optimal message type for young adults who vape and do not vape.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert, one-sided | Experimental | Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition will receive one-sided e-cigarette messages from an expert source. |
|
| Expert, two-sided | Experimental | Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition will receive two-sided e-cigarette messages from an expert source. |
|
| Peer, one-sided | Experimental | Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition will receive one-sided e-cigarette messages from a peer source. |
|
| Peer, two-sided | Experimental | Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition will receive two-sided e-cigarette messages from a peer source. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert, one-sided | Other | Participants will view a brief description of an expert source and see one-sided e-cigarette education messages. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Message Acceptance | Participants' self-reported message acceptance were measured by using a five-point Likert scale using five items assessing whether participants thought the message was worth remembering, grabbed their attention, powerful, convincing, and meaningful on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). 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 more message acceptance, therefore better outcomes. | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Harm Perceptions | Harm perceptions was measured by a single item e-cigarette harm perceptions question assessing participants' perceived absolute harm of e-cigarette use on a scale from 1 (Not at all harmful) to 10 (Very harmful). 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 harm perceptions, therefore indicating better outcome. | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Negative Cognition | Negative cognition was measured by six-item reactance questionnaire, such as perceptions of messages being manipulative, misleading, distorted, overblown, exaggerated, and overstated on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater negative cognition, indicating worse outcome. | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Donghee N Lee, PhD | UMass Chan Medical School | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMass Chan Medical School | Worcester | Massachusetts | 01605 | United States |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
n=109 data were removed from analysis; if 1) study duration was less than the average study duration (i.e., 8 minutes; n=44, if the participant age exceeded the eligible age (n=19); and if non-vapers did not meet the susceptibility criteria (n=46).
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | 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. |
| FG001 | 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. |
| FG002 | 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. |
| FG003 | 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. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Expert, One-Sided | 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. |
| BG001 | Expert, Two-Sided |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Message Acceptance | Participants' self-reported message acceptance were measured by using a five-point Likert scale using five items assessing whether participants thought the message was worth remembering, grabbed their attention, powerful, convincing, and meaningful on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). 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 more message acceptance, therefore better outcomes. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
Each adverse event or serious adverse event was monitored and assessed throughout the entire duration of the participant's study participation, from the moment a participant clicked on the study link until the study completed, which lasted approximately 45 minutes per participant during a single study visit on Day 1.
The study used a non-systematic assessment method, where adverse events were monitored through participants' reports (direct message to the research team via the crowdsourcing website). No adverse events were reported by participants or observed during the study duration.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Expert, One-sided | Participants assigned to the expert, one-sidedness condition will receive one-sided e-cigarette messages from an expert source. Expert, one-sided: Participants will view a brief description of an expert source and see one-sided e-cigarette education messages. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donghee Nicole Lee, Assistant Professor | University of Hawaii Cancer Center | 8084418184 | nlee@cc.hawaii.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Sep 6, 2024 | Dec 20, 2025 | Prot_001.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Jan 17, 2024 | Jan 31, 2024 | SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000072137 | Vaping |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012907 | Smoking |
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Expert, two-sided | Other | Participants will view a brief description of an expert source and see two-sided e-cigarette education messages. |
|
| Peer, one-sided | Other | Participants will view a brief description of a peer source and see one-sided e-cigarette education messages. |
|
| Peer, two-sided | Other | Participants will view a brief description of a peer source and see two-sided e-cigarette education messages. |
|
| Message Anger | Message anger was measured by four item message anger question assessing the extent to which the messages made participants feel irritated, angry, annoyed, and aggravated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Items were summed and averaged. This was done for each vaping status (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Higher scores indicate greater anger toward messages, indicating worse outcomes. | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Message Liking | Message liking will be measured by a single-item liking of the message on scale from 1 (Dislike very much) to 5 (Like very much). 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 message liking, therefore indicating better outcome. | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Source Trust | Source trust was measured by a single-item trust in health information source questionnaire, such as trust in source about vaping information on a scale from 1(Not at all) to 5 (Very much so). 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 source trust, therefore indicating better outcome | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Attitudes | 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. | After exposure to all messages (approximately up to 45 minutes), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
| Behavioral Intentions to Vape or Try Vaping | Participants' vaping or vaping trial intentions were 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. | After exposure to all messages (approximately up to 45 minutes), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
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. |
| BG002 | Peer, One-Sided | 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. |
| BG003 | Peer, Two-Sided | 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. |
| BG004 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex/Gender, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Vaping status | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Title |
|---|
| Description |
|---|
| OG000 | 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. |
| OG001 | 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. |
| OG002 | 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. |
| OG003 | 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. |
|
|
| Primary | Harm Perceptions | Harm perceptions was measured by a single item e-cigarette harm perceptions question assessing participants' perceived absolute harm of e-cigarette use on a scale from 1 (Not at all harmful) to 10 (Very harmful). 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 harm perceptions, therefore indicating better outcome. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Negative Cognition | Negative cognition was measured by six-item reactance questionnaire, such as perceptions of messages being manipulative, misleading, distorted, overblown, exaggerated, and overstated on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater negative cognition, indicating worse outcome. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Message Anger | Message anger was measured by four item message anger question assessing the extent to which the messages made participants feel irritated, angry, annoyed, and aggravated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Items were summed and averaged. This was done for each vaping status (current vapers and susceptible non-vapers). Higher scores indicate greater anger toward messages, indicating worse outcomes. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Message Liking | Message liking will be measured by a single-item liking of the message on scale from 1 (Dislike very much) to 5 (Like very much). 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 message liking, therefore indicating better outcome. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Source Trust | Source trust was measured by a single-item trust in health information source questionnaire, such as trust in source about vaping information on a scale from 1(Not at all) to 5 (Very much so). 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 source trust, therefore indicating better outcome | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to each messages (approximately up to 20 minutes total), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Attitudes | 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. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to all messages (approximately up to 45 minutes), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Behavioral Intentions to Vape or Try Vaping | Participants' vaping or vaping trial intentions were 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. | 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. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | After exposure to all messages (approximately up to 45 minutes), measured during a single study visit on Day 1. |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 191 |
| 0 |
| 191 |
| 0 |
| 191 |
| EG001 | Expert, Two-sided | Participants assigned to the expert, two-sidedness condition will receive two-sided e-cigarette messages from an expert source. Expert, two-sided: Participants will view a brief description of an expert source and see two-sided e-cigarette education messages. | 0 | 197 | 0 | 197 | 0 | 197 |
| EG002 | Peer, One-sided | Participants assigned to the peer, one-sidedness condition will receive one-sided e-cigarette messages from a peer source. Peer, one-sided: Participants will view a brief description of a peer source and see one-sided e-cigarette education messages. | 0 | 203 | 0 | 203 | 0 | 203 |
| EG003 | Peer, Two-sided | Participants assigned to the peer, two-sidedness condition will receive two-sided e-cigarette messages from a peer source. Peer, two-sided: Participants will view a brief description of a peer source and see two-sided e-cigarette education messages. | 0 | 194 | 0 | 194 | 0 | 194 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|
|
| Susceptible non-vapers |
|
|