Evidence Hub

Interventions to change vaping harm perceptions and associations between harm perceptions and vaping and smoking behaviours: A systematic review

Katherine A. East, E. Simonavičius, E. Taylor, L. Brose, D. Robson, Ann McNeill

Addiction, 2025

10 citations

Abstract

Abstract Aims To synthesize and describe the evidence from among young people and adults to assess: (i) what interventions have been effective in changing vaping harm perceptions; and (ii) to what extent vaping harm perceptions predict any changes in vaping and smoking behaviours. Methods Systematic review searching five databases (Embase, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus) from January 2007 to January 2023. Eligible studies reported quantitative data with >1 time point among young people (sample majority aged <18 years) or adults (sample majority aged ≥18 years). Interventions were considered if they communicated vaping harms, categorized as relative (vaping vs smoking) or absolute (vaping vs not vaping). Outcomes were changes in: (i) vaping (absolute, relative) or nicotine harm perceptions; (ii) vaping or smoking behaviours. Evidence was synthesized narratively. Results Eighty‐five articles were included, of which 46 assessed interventions to change vaping harm perceptions and 39 assessed associations between harm perceptions and subsequent vaping/smoking behaviours. All studies among young people and most among adults were from the USA. Interventions aimed at young people typically communicated that vaping and nicotine are harmful/addictive (absolute harms), often in the form of educational programmes and media campaigns. Interventions aimed at adults typically communicated that vaping is harmful but less harmful than smoking (relative harms), often via written materials…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free