Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24146791›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies.

Martine Stead, Crawford Moodie, Kathryn Angus, Linda Bauld, Ann McNeill, James Thomas, Gerard Hastings, Kate Hinds, Alison O'Mara-Eves, Irene Kwan and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Effect of plain cigarette packaging on point-of-sale purchasing behavior among young adults who smoke.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026
    Article
  13. Plain Packaging: One of the Plain Simple Solutions for Nicotine Reduction in the Middle East.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of E-liquid Packaging on Vaping Product Perceptions Among Youth in England, Canada, and the United States: A Randomized Online Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    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

12 authors.

Martine SteadInstitute for Social Marketing & Cancer Research United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco Control Research and United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Crawford Moodie
Kathryn Angus
Linda Bauld
Ann McNeill
James Thomas
Gerard Hastings
Kate Hinds
Alison O'Mara-Eves
Irene Kwan
Richard I Purves
Stuart L Bryce

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UK 15192Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesStandardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm.

methodsElectronic databases were searched and researchers in the field were contacted to identify studies. Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging. Twenty-five quantitative studies reported relevant outcomes and met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

resultsStudies that explored the impact of package design on appeal consistently found that standardised packaging reduced the appeal of cigarettes and smoking, and was associated with perceived lower quality, poorer taste and less desirable smoker identities. Although findings were mixed, standardised packs tended to increase the salience and effectiveness of health warnings in terms of recall, attention, believability and seriousness, with effects being mediated by the warning size, type and position on pack. Pack colour was found to influence perceptions of product harm and strength, with darker coloured standardised packs generally perceived as containing stronger tasting and more harmful cigarettes than fully branded packs; lighter coloured standardised packs suggested weaker and less harmful cigarettes. Findings were largely consistent, irrespective of location and sample.

conclusionsThe evidence strongly suggests that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of packaging and of smoking in general; that it will go some way to reduce consumer misperceptions regarding product harm based upon package design; and will help make the legally required on-pack health warnings more salient.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthDatabases, BibliographicFemaleHumansMaleMarketingMotivationProduct LabelingSmokingSmoking CessationTobacco Products

Identifiers

PMID24146791
PMCPMC3797796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.