To estimate the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) retail display exposure on attitudes to smoking and vaping (susceptibility to tobacco smoking and using e-cigarettes, and perceptions of the harms of smoking and e-cigarette use).
Between-subjects randomised experiment using a 2 (e-cigarette retail display visibility: high vs low)x2 (proportion of e-cigarette images: 75% vs 25%) factorial design.
Online via the Qualtrics survey platform.
UK children aged 13–17 years (n=1034), recruited through a research agency.
Participants viewed 12 images of retail displays that contained e-cigarette display images or unrelated product images. E-cigarette display images were either high or low visibility, based on a conspicuousness score. Participants were randomised to one of four groups, with e-cigarette display visibility and proportion of e-cigarette images, compared with images of unrelated products, manipulated: (1) 75% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (2) 25% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (3) 75% e-cigarettes, low visibility; (4) 25% e-cigarettes, low visibility.
The primary outcome was susceptibility to smoking (among never smokers only). Secondary outcomes were susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (among never vapers only), and perceptions of smoking and e-cigarette harm (all participants).
Neither e-cigarette retail display visibility, nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to smoking (visibility: OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.13, p=0.24; proportion: OR=1.34, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82, p=0.054 (reference: low visibility, not susceptible)).
Planned subgroup analyses indicated that exposure to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking among children who visited retail stores more regularly (n=524, OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.43, p=0.034), and those who passed the attention check (n=880, OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.031).
In addition, neither e-cigarette retail display visibility nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (visibility: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43, p=0.65; proportion: OR=1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64, p=0.18).
Greater visibility of e-cigarette retail displays reduced perceived harm of smoking (mean difference (MD)=–0.19, 95% CI –0.34 to –0.04, p=0.016). There was no evidence that the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed had an effect (MD=–0.07, 95% CI –0.22 to 0.09, p=0.40).
Perceived harm of e-cigarette use did not appear to be affected by e-cigarette retail display visibility (MD=–0.12, 95% CI –0.28 to 0.05, p=0.16) or by the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed (MD=–0.10, 95% CI –0.26 to 0.07, p=0.24).
There is no evidence in the full sample to suggest that children’s susceptibility to smoking is increased by exposure to higher visibility e-cigarette retail displays, or to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images. However, for regular store visitors or those paying more attention, viewing a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking. In addition, viewing higher visibility e-cigarette images reduced perceived harm of smoking. A review of the current regulatory discrepancy between tobacco and e-cigarette point-of-sale marketing is warranted.
ISRCTN18215632.