Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies.
<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075919 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839631149707558912 |
|---|---|
| author | Martine Stead Crawford Moodie Kathryn Angus Linda Bauld Ann McNeill James Thomas Gerard Hastings Kate Hinds Alison O'Mara-Eves Irene Kwan Richard I Purves Stuart L Bryce |
| author_facet | Martine Stead Crawford Moodie Kathryn Angus Linda Bauld Ann McNeill James Thomas Gerard Hastings Kate Hinds Alison O'Mara-Eves Irene Kwan Richard I Purves Stuart L Bryce |
| author_sort | Martine Stead |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background and objectives</h4>Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases were searched and researchers in the field were contacted to identify studies. Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging. Twenty-five quantitative studies reported relevant outcomes and met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted.<h4>Results</h4>Studies that explored the impact of package design on appeal consistently found that standardised packaging reduced the appeal of cigarettes and smoking, and was associated with perceived lower quality, poorer taste and less desirable smoker identities. Although findings were mixed, standardised packs tended to increase the salience and effectiveness of health warnings in terms of recall, attention, believability and seriousness, with effects being mediated by the warning size, type and position on pack. Pack colour was found to influence perceptions of product harm and strength, with darker coloured standardised packs generally perceived as containing stronger tasting and more harmful cigarettes than fully branded packs; lighter coloured standardised packs suggested weaker and less harmful cigarettes. Findings were largely consistent, irrespective of location and sample.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The evidence strongly suggests that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of packaging and of smoking in general; that it will go some way to reduce consumer misperceptions regarding product harm based upon package design; and will help make the legally required on-pack health warnings more salient. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1e81e2c256a34a3bbe1c536d47a78bc5 |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-1e81e2c256a34a3bbe1c536d47a78bc52025-07-12T05:31:15ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-01810e7591910.1371/journal.pone.0075919Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies.Martine SteadCrawford MoodieKathryn AngusLinda BauldAnn McNeillJames ThomasGerard HastingsKate HindsAlison O'Mara-EvesIrene KwanRichard I PurvesStuart L Bryce<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases were searched and researchers in the field were contacted to identify studies. Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging. Twenty-five quantitative studies reported relevant outcomes and met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted.<h4>Results</h4>Studies that explored the impact of package design on appeal consistently found that standardised packaging reduced the appeal of cigarettes and smoking, and was associated with perceived lower quality, poorer taste and less desirable smoker identities. Although findings were mixed, standardised packs tended to increase the salience and effectiveness of health warnings in terms of recall, attention, believability and seriousness, with effects being mediated by the warning size, type and position on pack. Pack colour was found to influence perceptions of product harm and strength, with darker coloured standardised packs generally perceived as containing stronger tasting and more harmful cigarettes than fully branded packs; lighter coloured standardised packs suggested weaker and less harmful cigarettes. Findings were largely consistent, irrespective of location and sample.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The evidence strongly suggests that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of packaging and of smoking in general; that it will go some way to reduce consumer misperceptions regarding product harm based upon package design; and will help make the legally required on-pack health warnings more salient.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075919 |
| spellingShingle | Martine Stead Crawford Moodie Kathryn Angus Linda Bauld Ann McNeill James Thomas Gerard Hastings Kate Hinds Alison O'Mara-Eves Irene Kwan Richard I Purves Stuart L Bryce Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PLoS ONE |
| title | Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. |
| title_full | Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. |
| title_fullStr | Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. |
| title_short | Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. |
| title_sort | is consumer response to plain standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines a systematic review of quantitative studies |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075919 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT martinestead isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT crawfordmoodie isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT kathrynangus isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT lindabauld isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT annmcneill isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT jamesthomas isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT gerardhastings isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT katehinds isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT alisonomaraeves isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT irenekwan isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT richardipurves isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies AT stuartlbryce isconsumerresponsetoplainstandardisedtobaccopackagingconsistentwithframeworkconventionontobaccocontrolguidelinesasystematicreviewofquantitativestudies |