ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2021
Smokers' perceptions of different classes of cigarette brand descriptors.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2021. 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.
- Systematic Assessment of Flavor Cues and Additives in Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products in Korea: Cross-Sectional Surveillance Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- A content analysis of cannabis edibles package marketing in the United States.The International journal on drug policy · 2024Article
- Doing more with less: A proposal to advance cigarette packaging regulations in the United States.The International journal on drug policy · 2024Article
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
Abstract
introductionCigarette brand descriptors such as 'light' are banned in several countries and often replaced by alternative descriptors that continue to mislead smokers about the relative risk from those brands. The objective of this study was to evaluate perceptions from current brand descriptors when presented independently of cigarette packaging.
methodsEighty-eight daily cigarette smokers attended semi-structured interviews at three US research laboratories in 2018-2019 to assess smokers' perceptions of cigarette brand descriptors in four classes of brand features: prestige, connotation, taste, and color. Participants ranked descriptors within each brand feature on perceived harm, attractiveness, and appeal (willingness to try). Ranked perceptions were described using median rankings and percentages. Chi-squared was used to assess demographic effects on perceptions. Spearman's correlation was used to assess the association between harm, attractiveness, and appeal rankings.
resultsBrand descriptors influenced perceptions of harm, attractiveness, and appeal within each brand feature. Smooth was perceived as the most attractive (42.5%) and appealing (33.0%) taste descriptor. Red was perceived as the most harmful (45.4%) and least appealing (22.7%) color descriptor. Perceptions of certain descriptors differed by demographic characteristics such as sex and age. Rankings of attractiveness and appeal were more strongly correlated (r=0.63) than rankings of harm and appeal (r=0.20, p<0.01).
conclusionsCigarette manufacturers replaced banned descriptors with alternative descriptors that continue to influence perceptions of cigarettes. Regulatory agencies should closely evaluate all brand descriptors and consider implications for alternative products with fewer regulations.
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.