Observational studyBMJ open2019
Tobacco pack display at hospitality venues after the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging in New Zealand: a field observation study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Pack-Hiding Behavior Among Smokers: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn March 2018, New Zealand (NZ) introduced standardised tobacco packaging that also featured new pictorial warnings, with implementation completed by early June 2018. We evaluated how the new packaging affected tobacco pack displays in outdoor areas of hospitality venues.
designBefore-and-after descriptive field observation study.
settingCentral city area of the capital city of NZ (Wellington).
participantsObservations of people smoking and tobacco packs were made at 56 hospitality venues with outdoor tables (2422 separate venue observations), after the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging. Comparisons were made with a prior study in the same setting, from a time when tobacco packaging still featured brand imagery.
resultsA total of 8191 patrons, 1113 active smokers and 889 packs and pouches (522 of known orientation) were observed over 2422 venue observations. There were 0.80 visible packs per active smoker in 2018, compared with 1.26 in 2014 (risk ratio (RR)=0.64, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.67, p<0.0001). The new packs in 2018 were also less likely to be displayed face-up, compared with packs in 2014, which had brand imagery on the front face (RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.83, p<0.0001). Pack and pouch display (RR=3.09 in 2014 and 3.10 in 2018) and active smoking (RR=3.16 in 2014 compared with 3.32 in 2018) were higher at venues without children present, compared with venues with children present (this finding was consistent over time).
conclusionsThe reduction in the number of visible packs per active smoker, along with the reduction in face-up positioning of packs, suggests that smokers found the new standardised packs less attractive. Countries introducing standardised packaging should consider evaluating social display of tobacco packaging.
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.