ArticleTobacco control2023
Role of affective reactivity induced by cigarette packaging including graphic warning labels: the CASA Study.
Article in Tobacco control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating US smokers' willingness to pay for different cigarette packaging designs before and after real-world exposure in a randomised trial.Tobacco control · 2023Trial
- Effects of cigarette package colors and warning labels on marlboro smokers' risk beliefs, product appraisals, and smoking behavior: a randomized trial.BMC public health · 2023Trial
- Effect of Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Pack-Hiding Behavior Among Smokers: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Effects of emotional arousal on the neural impact and behavioral efficacy of cigarette graphic warning labels.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify whether three types of cigarette pack designs, including three versions of graphic warning label (GWL) plain packs, one GWL absent and branding absent pack (blank) and the smoker's own GWL absent and branding present pack (US), elicit different valence, type and levels of affect.
designUS daily smokers (n=324) were asked to handle each of the five pack types and 'think aloud' their reactions. To avoid a muted familiarity response, exposure to their own US pack followed exposure to at least one GWL plain pack. Reactions were scored on a reactivity scale (-3 to +3) and the text was coded for speech polarity (-1 to +1) and emotive word frequency.
resultsReactivity scores had excellent inter-rater reliability (agreement ≥86%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.89) and were correlated with speech polarity (r=0.21-0.37, p<0.001). When considering their US pack, approximately two-thirds of smokers had a low (31.5%) to medium (34.6%) positive response (reactivity=1.29; polarity=0.14) with expressed feelings of joy and trust. Blank packaging prompted a largely (65.4%) neutral response (reactivity=0.03; polarity=0.00). The gangrenous foot GWL provoked mostly medium (46.9%) to high (48.1%) negative responses (reactivity=-2.44; polarity=-0.20), followed by neonatal baby (reactivity=-1.85; polarity=-0.10) and throat cancer (reactivity=-1.76; polarity=-0.08) warnings. GWLs varied in their elicitation of disgust, anger, fear and sadness.
conclusionInitial reactions to GWL packs, a blank pack, and smokers' current US pack reflected negative, neutral, and positive affect, respectively. Different versions of the GWL pack elicited different levels and types of immediate negative affect.
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.