ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2017
Re-analysing tobacco industry funded research on the effect of plain packaging on minors in Australia: Same data but different results.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Short-term Impact of Standardised Packaging on Smoking and Snus Use in Norway.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
- Plain tobacco packaging, increased graphic health warnings and adolescents' perceptions and initiation of smoking: DePICT, a French nationwide study.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Addressing NCDs: Challenges From Industry Market Promotion and Interferences.International journal of health policy and management · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOur objective was to re-analyse the data used in an industry-funded working paper to study the effect of plain packaging on youth smoking prevalence in Australia, allowing for other tobacco control measures introduced over the period 2001-2013, and using a more appropriate method of analysis.
methodsMonthly smoking prevalence and sample sizes from repeat cross-sectional surveys were reconstructed from the working paper by reverse engineering of the industry-presented data, and analysed as a time series using logistic regression. Power analysis presented in the industry-funded working paper was re-calculated.
resultsSmoking prevalence among minors in Australia declined from 11.6% to 5.6% over the 13-year period examined; an overall 52% relative reduction or an average annual reduction of 5.5% (95% confidence interval 4.6% to 6.4%). There was a 12.1% (-4.8% to 26.2%) relative reduction in smoking prevalence when plain packaging was introduced, though the reduction was not statistically significant. Re-calculated power values were much lower than those reported in the industry-funded paper, confirming the inconclusiveness of its findings, as pointed out in previous critiques.
conclusionsOur findings suggest a decline of smoking prevalence in minors following the introduction of plain packaging in Australia. They differ substantially from those presented in an industry-funded study on the effects of plain packaging on smoking prevalence in minors in Australia, which used the same data.
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.