ArticleBMJ open2014
Socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers' ratings of plain and branded cigarette packaging: an experimental study.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Colours, capsules and concept flavour names on cigarette packs appeal to youth in Mexico.Tobacco control · 2023Trial
- Influence of premium versus value brand names on the smoking experience in a plain packaging environment: an experimental study.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Reporting of Differences in Taste Between Branded and Unbranded Cigarettes by Smokers Blinded to Cigarette Branding: Within-Person, Randomized Crossover Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Socioeconomic status and cigarette expenditure among US households: results from 2010 to 2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Does Segmentation Really Work? Effectiveness of Matched Graphic Health Warnings on Cigarette Packaging by Race, Gender and Chronic Disease Conditions on Cognitive Outcomes among Vulnerable Populations.Journal of health communication · 2018Article
- Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers.PloS one · 2018Article
- Smoke signals: The decline of brand identity predicts reduced smoking behaviour following the introduction of plain packaging.Addictive behaviors reports · 2017Article
- Financial Stress and Smoking within a Large Sample of Socially Disadvantaged Australians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- Self-Exempting Beliefs and Intention to Quit Smoking within a Socially Disadvantaged Australian Sample of Smokers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
- Australian adult smokers' responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey.Tobacco control · 2015Article
- Waterpipe tobacco smoking: what is the evidence that it supports nicotine/tobacco dependence?Tobacco control · 2015Review
- Plain packaging of cigarettes: do we have sufficient evidence?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2015Review
- Young women smokers' response to using plain cigarette packaging: qualitative findings from a naturalistic study.BMC public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to test the potential impact of plain packaging for cigarettes on brand appeal among highly socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers using the new design for cigarettes implemented in Australia, which combines plain packaging with larger health warning labels.
designA 2×2 factorial design trial embedded within a cross-sectional computer touchscreen survey. Data were collected between March and December 2012.
settingSocially disadvantaged welfare aid recipients were recruited through a large Social and Community Service Organisation in New South Wales, Australia.
participantsN=354 smokers. The majority of the sample had not completed high school (64%), earned less than $A300/week (55%) and received their income from Government payments (95%).
interventionsParticipants were randomised to one of the four different pack conditions determined by brand name: Winfield versus Benson & Hedges, and packaging type: branded versus plain. Participants were required to rate their assigned pack on measures of brand appeal and purchase intentions.
resultsPlain packaging was associated with significantly reduced smoker ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (p<0.001), 'positive smoker characteristics' (p=0.003) and 'positive taste characteristics' (p=0.033) in the Winfield brand name condition only. Across the four pack conditions, no main differences were found for 'negative smoker characteristics' (p=0.427) or 'negative harm characteristics' (p=0.411). In comparison to plain packaging, the presentation of branded packaging was associated with higher odds of smokers' purchase intentions (OR=2.18, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.54; p=0.002).
conclusionsPlain packs stripped of branding elements, featuring larger health warning labels, were associated with reduced positive cigarette brand image and purchase intentions among highly socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.