A Pilot Study Assessing Reactions to Educational Videos on Harm of Waterpipe among Young Adults Susceptible to Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking

Abstract

Young adults who never engaged in waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) yet are open to trying it, that is, are susceptible, is a high-risk group for initiation WTS. Very few interventions dissuade this group from WTS. Thus, we explored how four short videos that varied themes of WTS harms influenced susceptible young adults’ risk perceptions, risk beliefs, and susceptibility to future WTS. As part of online cross-sectional study, 208 participants aged 18–34 were randomized to watch or not a short video; each video focused on different themes of WTS risks: physical harms, myths about WTS, addiction, and harms to others. The main outcomes were perceived personal risks, risk beliefs, perceived harm of WTS compared to cigarettes, and susceptibility to future WTS. Watching any video increased beliefs of harm of WTS and lowered susceptibility to future WTS compared to not watching a video. The theme of physical harms was most effective at increasing risk beliefs and lowering susceptibility to future WTS. All four videos were rated as credible, engaging, personally relevant, producing negative affect toward WTS, and effective at dissuading WTS. These promising findings suggest further testing is needed to determine if effects persist and prevent WTS among adults susceptible to WTS.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Thomas Eissenberg for granting us permission to test the videos. We thank Rima Nakkash for providing details concerning the development of the videos. We thank William Tatum for helping to program the online study.

Disclosure Statement

The authors report no financial or other conflicts of interests.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the study findings are available from the corresponding first author, upon reasonable request.

Notes

¹ After conducting this study, we later became aware that the same video themes had a young female narrator.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported using internal funding from the Duke University School of Nursing.