Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34882868›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

Standardised packs and larger health warnings: visual attention and perceptions among Colombian smokers and non-smokers.

Carlos Sillero-Rejon, Osama Mahmoud, Ricardo M Tamayo, Alvaro Arturo Clavijo-Alvarez, Sally Adams, Olivia M Maynard

Open access · hybridAbstract 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Moving in the right direction: tobacco packaging and labeling in the Americas.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022
    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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Carlos Sillero-RejonSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5502-9247
Osama MahmoudSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0342-6704
Ricardo M TamayoDepartamento de Psicologia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-8678-0145
Alvaro Arturo Clavijo-AlvarezDepartamento de Psicologia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Sally AdamsDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8398-4460
Olivia M MaynardSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9048-6627
Universidad Nacional de Colombia · COUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bath · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo measure how cigarette packaging (standardised packaging and branded packaging) and health warning size affect visual attention and pack preferences among Colombian smokers and non-smokers.

designTo explore visual attention, we used an eye-tracking experiment where non-smokers, weekly smokers and daily smokers were shown cigarette packs varying in warning size (30%-pictorial on top of the text, 30%-pictorial and text side-by-side, 50%, 70%) and packaging (standardised packaging, branded packaging). We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine the impact of warning size, packaging and brand name on preferences to try, taste perceptions and perceptions of harm.

settingEye-tracking laboratory, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

participantsParticipants (n = 175) were 18 to 40 years old. MEASUREMENTS: For the eye-tracking experiment, our primary outcome measure was the number of fixations toward the health warning compared with the branding. For the DCE, outcome measures were preferences to try, taste perceptions and harm perceptions.

findingsWe observed greater visual attention to warning labels on standardised versus branded packages (F[3,167] = 22.87, P < 0.001) and when warnings were larger (F[9,161] = 147.17, P < 0.001); as warning size increased, the difference in visual attention to warnings between standardised and branded packaging decreased (F[9,161] = 4.44, P < 0.001). Non-smokers visually attended toward the warnings more than smokers, but as warning size increased these differences decreased (F[6,334] = 2.92, P = 0.009). For the DCE, conditional trials showed that increasing the warning size from 30% to 70% reduced preferences to try (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.42,0.54], P < 0.001), taste perceptions (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = [0.54,0.68], P < 0.001); and increased harm perceptions (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = [0.76,0.80], P < 0.001). Compared with branded packaging, standardised packaging reduced our DCE outcome measures with ORs ranging from OR = 0.25 (95% CI = [0.17,0.38], P < 0.001) to OR = 0.79 (95% CI = [0.67,0.93], P < 0.001) across two brands. These effects were more pronounced among non-smokers, males and younger participants. Unconditional trials showed similar results.

conclusionsStandardised cigarette packaging and larger health warnings appear to decrease positive pack perceptions and have the potential to reduce the demand for cigarette products in Colombia.

Indexed as

SmokersTobacco ProductsAdolescentAdultColombiaHumansMaleNon-SmokersProduct LabelingProduct PackagingSmokingYoung AdultColombiadiscrete choiceeye-trackinghealth warningsplain packagingSouth Americastandardised packagingtobacco

Identifiers

PMID34882868
PMCPMC9306697
OpenAlexW4200501780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.