ArticleTobacco control2015
Australian adult smokers' responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey.
Article in Tobacco control, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Perceptions of plain packaging and health warnings among university students in Turkey: a survey-based experiment.BMC public health · 2023Trial
- Standardised snus packaging reduces brand differentiation: a web-based between-subject experiment.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Perceptions of plain packaging and health warning labels for cannabis among young adults: findings from an experimental study.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Influence of premium versus value brand names on the smoking experience in a plain packaging environment: an experimental study.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Plain Packaging: One of the Plain Simple Solutions for Nicotine Reduction in the Middle East.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Managing Fear Responses: A Qualitative Analysis of Pictorial Warning Labels Five Years Post-Plain Packaging.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Systems thinking in public health policy development.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- The impact of the introduction of tobacco product plain packaging on consumer responses in Ireland: a real-world policy evaluation stratified by socioeconomic groups.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Impact of standardized tobacco packaging on smoking-related behaviors and perceptions in Singapore.Tobacco induced diseases · 2024Article
- Review
- Role of affective reactivity induced by cigarette packaging including graphic warning labels: the CASA Study.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Evaluating the impact of plain packaging among Canadian smokers: findings from the 2018 and 2020 ITC Smoking and Vaping Surveys.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Impact of Visual Elements of Tobacco Packaging on Health Risk Perceptions of Youth Groups.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Changing Behaviour: Blindness to Risk and a Critique of Tobacco Control Policy in China-A Qualitative Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Emotional Impact of Graphic Health Warnings on Tobacco Packaging: Analysis of Their Content.Europe's journal of psychology · 2022Article
- Cancer Prevention Strategies for Nepal.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2022Article
- Plain packaging on tobacco products in France: Effectiveness on smokers' attitudes one year after implementation.Tobacco induced diseases · 2022Article
- Eye tracking applied to tobacco smoking: current directions and future perspectives.Journal of eye movement research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed whether the Australian plain packs with larger graphic health warnings (GHWs) achieved three specific objectives of reducing the appeal of tobacco, increasing health warning effectiveness and reducing the ability of packaging to mislead about smoking harms.
methodsWe compared responses from continuous cross-sectional telephone surveys of n=2176 cigarette smokers during pre-plain packaging (April-September 2012, pre-PP) with n=759 surveyed in the transition period (October-November 2012) and n=4240 during the first year of implementation (December 2012-November 2013, PP year 1), using multivariate logistic regression analyses.
resultsFrom pre-PP to PP year 1, more smokers disliked their pack (p<0.001), perceived lower pack appeal (p<0.001), lower cigarette quality (p<0.001), lower satisfaction (p<0.001) and lower value (p<0.001) and disagreed brands differed in prestige (p=0.003). There was no change in perceived differences in taste of different brands. More smokers noticed GHWs (p<0.001), attributed much motivation to quit to GHWs (p<0.001), avoided specific GHWs when purchasing (p<0.001), and covered packs (p<0.001), with no change in perceived exaggeration of harms. PP year 1 saw an increased proportion believing that brands do not differ in harmfulness (p=0.004), but no change in the belief that variants do not differ in strength or the perceived harmfulness of cigarettes compared with a year ago. Interactions signified greater change for four outcomes assessing aspects of appeal among young adults and two appeal outcomes among mid-aged adults.
conclusionsThe specific objectives of plain packaging were achieved and generally sustained among adult smokers up to 12 months after implementation.
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.