Australia's plain tobacco packs: anticipated and actual responses among adolescents and young adults 2010–2013

Dunlop, Sally; Perez, Donna; Dessaix, Anita; Currow, David C.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053166

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is furthermore consistent with the finding of a recent study 22 that provides 'evidence that a considerable proportion of young smokers tried to quit or thought about quitting as a result of the new Australian tobacco packs in the period following their introduction'.…”

Section: Logistic Regression Analysissupporting

confidence: 80%

Re-analysing tobacco industry funded research on the effect of plain packaging on minors in Australia: Same data but different results

Diethelm¹,

Farley²

2017

Tob. Prev. Cessation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION Our 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][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010][2011][2012][2013], and using a more appropriate method of analysis. METHODS Monthly 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 industryfunded working paper was re-calculated. RESULTS Smoking 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. CONCLUSIONS Our 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.

show abstract

Section: Logistic Regression Analysissupporting

confidence: 80%

Re-analysing tobacco industry funded research on the effect of plain packaging on minors in Australia: Same data but different results

Diethelm¹,

Farley²

2017

Tob. Prev. Cessation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The policy recognizes that on-pack brand imagery has positioned tobacco use as an aspirational behaviour and fostered uptake among young people, 5 transforming tobacco packages from attractive display items to highly unappealing articles. Evidence from Australia shows standardized packaging and larger pictorial warning labels have reduced smoking’s appeal among young people, 6 increased demand for cessation support 7 and decreased smoking prevalence. 8 Evaluations confirm predictions from experimental and other studies used to support the introduction of this policy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy options for extending standardized tobacco packaging

Hoek

Gendall

2017

Bull. World Health Organ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several participants demonstrated aversive reactions to the health warnings, including asking for them to be covered, stating that they would put the cigarettes in another container so that they would not see the health warning, or not wanting to have the packet in their hand or pocket. Covering or hiding cigarette packs from others or feeling uncomfortable have been identified as markers of social denormalization [8]. In Australia, 8 months after standardized packs were introduced, one in four young smokers reported one of these responses that indicated feelings of social denormalization [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As more countries ban or restrict tobacco marketing, tobacco companies have focused their attention and promotional budgets on retail point-of-sale displays and cigarette branding and packaging [5][6][7]. These marketing strategies have created cigarette brand images that young smokers use as a form of symbolic consumption whereby the cigarette brand, and its perceived positive attributes (the brand heuristic), is used to construct and project a desirable identity to peers and others in their social worlds [8][9][10][11][12]. Systematic reviews of research with young people, including qualitative studies and experimental study designs involving 'mocked-up' cigarette packs with different features, have concluded that implementing standardized packaging which remove pack design elements would: reduce the appeal of cigarette packs and cigarettes; increase the prominence and salience of health warnings; and reduce the pack's ability to mislead about product harm [13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘It's like sludge green’: young people's perceptions of standardized tobacco packaging in the UK

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Standardized tobacco packaging was introduced in the United Kingdom in May 2016, together with larger graphic warnings. This study explored young Scottish people's awareness of and perceptions about standardized tobacco packaging in the United Kingdom. Design Qualitative study using 16 focus groups conducted February–March 2017. Setting Four schools in Scotland based in areas of differing socio‐economic status (high versus medium/low) and two levels of urbanity (large urban versus small town/other urban). Participants Eighty‐two S2 (13–14 years) and S4 (15–16 years) students who were smokers or at‐risk non‐smokers. Measurements Focus groups explored perceptions of standardized packaging and health warnings. The qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Findings Views about standardized packaging were generally negative. Packs were described as being unattractive, drab and less appealing than non‐standardized versions. The new health warnings generated negative affective, often aversive, responses. These varied depending on the image's perceived ‘gruesomeness’ and authenticity. Most participants thought that the impact would be greatest on young non/occasional smokers. There were divergent views about whether established smokers would be affected. Conclusions The introduction of standardized tobacco packaging and new larger graphic health warnings in the United Kingdom seems have reduced the perceived attractiveness of cigarette packs among young people in the United Kingdom who smoke or are at elevated risk of becoming smokers, disrupting positive brand imagery (the brand heuristic), increasing the salience of health warnings and contributing to denormalizing smoking.

show abstract

Australia's plain tobacco packs: anticipated and actual responses among adolescents and young adults 2010–2013

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Re-analysing tobacco industry funded research on the effect of plain packaging on minors in Australia: Same data but different results

Re-analysing tobacco industry funded research on the effect of plain packaging on minors in Australia: Same data but different results

Policy options for extending standardized tobacco packaging

‘It's like sludge green’: young people's perceptions of standardized tobacco packaging in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About