Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697845›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

Strategies to enhance the effects of pictorial warnings for cigarettes: results from a discrete choice experiment.

James F Thrasher, Farahnaz Islam, Edna Arillo-Santillán, Rosibel Rodriguez-Bolaños, Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez, James W Hardin, Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Role of Harm Visibility for Pictorial Health Warning Labels on Cigars.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Examining the Effectiveness of the 2012 Canadian Graphic Warning Label Policy Change by Sex, Income, and Education.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

James F ThrasherDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Farahnaz IslamDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Edna Arillo-SantillánDepartment of Tobacco Research, Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
Rosibel Rodriguez-BolañosDepartment of Tobacco Research, Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
Belen Saenz de Miera JuarezDepartment of Economics, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, La Paz, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-3117-0734
James W HardinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Inti Barrientos-GutierrezEvaluation and Surveys Research Center, National Institute of Public Health, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-9094-8185

Funding

Evaluation of cigarette package inserts for enhanced communication with smokersR01CA215466 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI THRASHER, JAMES · 2019 to 2024
$2.9M
Building evidence for effective and sustainable cigarette warning label policyR01CA167067 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI THRASHER, JAMES · 2012 to 2016
$2.7M
Electronic cigarettes in Latin America: Evaluation of impacts and policy optionsR01TW010652 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI BARNOYA, JOAQUIN, THRASHER, JAMES · 2018 to 2021
$1.6M
FIC NIH HHS R01 TW010652NCI NIH HHS R01 CA167067NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo measure the effects of changing attributes of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packs in a country that has already implemented pictorial HWLs. MEASURES: For each choice set, participants were presented with two cigarette packs and asked the following three questions: (1) 'If only these two cigarette packs were available, which would you buy?'; (2) 'Each of these two packs has warnings on the front and back about the health effects of smoking. Which of these warnings best informs you about the dangers from smoking?'; and (3) 'Which warning most makes you think about quitting smoking?'. As recommended for best practices in discrete choice experiments, each of these questions was followed by an 'opt-out' question for participants to indicate whether they really believed there was a difference between the options presented (i.e. 'Would you really choose one of them?'; 'Do you really think that either of these warnings informs you about dangers from smoking?'; or 'Do you really think that either of these warnings would make you think about quitting smoking?', respectively). Each choice set could be viewed for as long as the participant wished. For each choice question (i.e. willingness to buy, informative, motivating to quit), the pack chosen was coded as 1 and the other pack as 0, with both packs being given a value of 0 if the participant 'opted out'.

designA within-subject discrete choice experiment that involved systematic manipulation of pictorial HWL size [75 versus 30% (current policy)]; inclusion of imagery on the back of the pack [versus none (current policy)]; and color formatting [black on yellow versus yellow on black (current policy)].

settingMexico, on-line panel.

participantsAdult smokers (n = 705). MEASUREMENTS: For each choice set, participants selected one pack as having the most informative HWL about smoking harms, the one that makes them think the most about quitting and the one they were most willing to buy. We assessed the independent and interactive effects of HWL attributes on choices.

findingsLarger HWL size on the pack front (75 versus 30%) and inclusion of a pictorial image on the pack back were both independently associated with lower willingness to buy a pack [b = -0.228, standard error (SE) = 0.023 and -0.089, SE = 0.016, respectively] and greater perception of an HWL as informative (b = 0.214, SE = 0.022, and 0.191, SE = 0.017, respectively) and motivating to quit (b = 0.251, SE = 0.023 and 0.194, SE = 0.017, respectively). HWL with black text and yellow background were perceived as less informative (b = -0.037, SE = 0.016) and less motivating to quit (b = -0.032, SE = 0.015) compared with yellow text on a black background.

conclusionsAmong adult Mexican smokers, pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packages that are larger or cover both sides of the pack appear more effective at lowering purchase intentions and increasing risk perceptions and motivation to quit than smaller health warning labels or health warning labels with imagery only on the pack front.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationTobacco ProductsAdultHumansProduct LabelingSmokersSmokingSmoking PreventionAdultsdiscrete choice experimentMexicopictorial health warningssmokingtobacco

Identifiers

PMID34697845
PMCPMC8904287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.