Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16046703›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2005

Ensuring smokers are adequately informed: reflections on consumer rights, manufacturer responsibilities, and policy implications.

S Chapman, J Liberman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The Impact of Smokers' Information-Seeking Behavior on Smoking Cessation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. A Deliberate Choice? Exploring the Decision to Switch from Cigarettes to E-Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Factor Structure and Stability of Smoking-Related Health Beliefs in the National Lung Screening Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S ChapmanSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. simonchapman@health.usyd.edu.au
J Liberman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The right to information is a fundamental consumer value. Following the advent of health warnings, the tobacco industry has repeatedly asserted that smokers are fully informed of the risks they take, while evidence demonstrates widespread superficial levels of awareness and understanding. There remains much that tobacco companies could do to fulfil their responsibilities to inform smokers. We explore issues involved in the meaning of "adequately informed" smoking and discuss some of the key policy and regulatory implications. We use the idea of a smoker licensing scheme-under which it would be illegal to sell to smokers who had not demonstrated an adequate level of awareness-as a device to explore some of these issues. We also explore some of the difficulties that addiction poses for the notion that smokers might ever voluntarily assume the risks of smoking.

Indexed as

Human RightsAttitude to HealthAustraliaHealth EducationHealth PolicyHumansLicensureSmokingSocial ResponsibilityTobacco Industry

Identifiers

PMID16046703
PMCPMC1766188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.