Can Extant Vaping Prevention Message Experiments Tell Us Something About What Works? A Response to O'Keefe

In his commentary, O'Keefe raises some interesting questions about the meaning of effect sizes in meta-analyses of experiments, focusing on our recent meta-analysis on vaping prevention messages. In this commentary, we respond to O'Keefe's comments and make several points. First, it is not uncommon to include experiments with different control conditions in a meta-analysis. Second, the set of studies in our meta-analysis were relatively homogenous, all being experiments testing messages to discourage vaping among adolescents and young adults. Third, the control conditions in each of the studies in the meta-analysis were appropriate for each given study, and our results show homogenous effects on most outcomes. Fourth, our meta-analysis finds meaningful effects that are timely and will be useful to researchers and practitioners alike. As this literature continues to grow, so too will knowledge about the effects of vaping prevention messages and moderators of those effects.

Automated summary

In his commentary, O'Keefe raises questions about the meaning of effect sizes in meta-analyses and discusses our recent meta-analysis on vaping prevention messages. In our response, we address the inclusion of experiments with different control conditions, the homogeneity of the studies in our meta-analysis, the appropriateness of control conditions in each study, and the meaningful effects found in our meta-analysis that will be valuable to researchers and practitioners. We also highlight the ongoing growth of knowledge in this area regarding vaping prevention messages and their effects.