↓ Skip to main content

Textual health warning labels on snus (Swedish moist snuff): do they affect risk perception?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Textual health warning labels on snus (Swedish moist snuff): do they affect risk perception?
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5461-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie Villemo Nilsen, Oddgeir Friborg, Karl Halvor Teigen, Frode Svartdal

Abstract

To strengthen the risk message on snus warning labels, the European Union in 2016 removed "can" from the warning "This tobacco product (can) damages your health and is addictive." We tested how these and other textual warnings affect risk perception. Snus-using and non-using Norwegians aged 16-72 participated in two online survey experiments. Participants in Study 1 (N = 196) were randomized to read one of four warning labels. Outcome variables included ratings of likelihood of health damage from snus and perceived severity of such damages. Study 2 (N = 423) used similar outcome measures but added a baseline measure allowing for a pre-post comparison, as well as a control group receiving no warning label. Data were analysed using ANOVA and non-parametric tests. Study 1 indicated that removing "can" from the EU warning increased long-term risk perception, but adding "causes cancer" had no effect on risk perception. In Study 2, risk perception increased from pre to post, regardless of label manipulation. "Causes cancer" and "damages your health" were indicated as most alarming when participants compared and ranked all warnings. Adding "causes cancer" or removing "can" from "damages your health" did not strengthen short-time (1 year) risk perception, but the latter increased long-term (10 years) risk perception in Study 1. In the pre-post design in Study 2, risk perception increased regardless of warning label.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Psychology 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Engineering 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,424,842
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,218
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,460
of 328,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#257
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.