Impact of standardising the colour and branding of vape devices on product appeal among young people: a randomised experiment in England, Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of standardising the colour and branding of disposable vaping devices on young people's interest in trying them. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were from national surveys of 16-29-year-olds in Canada, England and the United States in 2023 (N=15 259). INTERVENTIONS: Respondents were randomised (1:1) to view images of either four branded disposable vapes (N=7638) or four standardised white disposable vapes (n=7621) and asked which they would be interested in trying. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was selecting "no interest in trying" rather than any of the vapes displayed. We also examined whether the impact of standardisation differed by five potential moderators. RESULTS: A greater proportion of participants reported "no interest in trying" the white standardised than branded vapes (67.1% vs 62.8%; adjusted risk ratio (ARR) 1.127, 95% CI 1.085 to 1.169). Compared with those who had never smoked or vaped, the impact of standardisation on those reporting no interest was greater for those who had, in the past 30 days, only smoked (47.5% vs 37.5%, ARR 1.287, 95% CI 1.079 to 1.495), only vaped (19.9% vs 16.4%, ARR 1.220, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.438), dual used (13.5% vs 9.5%, ARR 1.420, 95% CI 1.017 to 1.822) or who had formerly vaped/smoked (72.6% vs 65.0%, ARR 1.119, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.167). The impact was also greatest in the oldest age group, but there were no other clear moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Standardising the colour and branding of disposable vaping devices reduces young people's interest in trying them. However, this includes a substantial impact on those who smoke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".