Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27798017›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Desensitisation to cigarette package graphic health warnings: a cohort comparison between London and Singapore.

Culadeeban Ratneswaran, Ben Chisnall, Mingyue Li, Sarah Tan, Abdel Douiri, Devanand Anantham, Joerg Steier

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Culadeeban RatneswaranFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Ben ChisnallFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Mingyue LiDepartment of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sarah TanDepartment of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abdel DouiriFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Devanand AnanthamDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Joerg SteierFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBNational University of Singapore · SGSingapore General Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe compared 2 sociocultural cohorts with different duration of exposure to graphic health warning labels (GHWL), to investigate a possible desensitisation to their use. We further studied how a differing awareness and emotional impact of smoking-associated risks could be used to prevent this.

settingStructured interviews of patients from the general respiratory department were undertaken between 2012 and 2013 in 2 tertiary hospitals in Singapore and London.

participants266 participants were studied, 163 Londoners (35% smokers, 54% male, age 52±18 years) and 103 Singaporeans (53% smokers, p=0.003; 78% male, p<0.001; age 58±15 years, p=0.012). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 50 items assessed demographics, smoking history, knowledge and the deterring impact of smoking-associated risks. After showing 10 GHWL, the impact on emotional response, cognitive processing and intended smoking behaviour was recorded.

resultsSingaporeans scored lower than the Londoners across all label processing constructs, and this was consistent for the smoking and non-smoking groups. Londoners experienced more 'disgust' and felt GHWL were more effective at preventing initiation of, or quitting, smoking. Singaporeans had a lower awareness of lung cancer (82% vs 96%, p<0.001), despite ranking it as the most deterring consequence of smoking. Overall, 'blindness' was the least known potential risk (28%), despite being ranked as more deterring than 'stroke' and 'oral cancer' in all participants.

conclusionsThe length of exposure to GHWL impacts on the effectiveness. However, acknowledging the different levels of awareness and emotional impact of smoking-associated risks within different sociocultural cohorts could be used to maintain their impact.

Indexed as

CognitionHabituation, PsychophysiologicProduct LabelingSmoking CessationTobacco ProductsAdultAgedAwarenessDrug PackagingEmotionsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHospitalsHumansIntentionLondonpsychologySmoking cessationtobacco control

Identifiers

PMID27798017
PMCPMC5093627
OpenAlexW2537437719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.