Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth

Hammond, David; Dockrell, Martin; Arnott, Deborah; Lee, Alex; McNeill, Ann

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckp122

Cited by 139 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11 E-cigarette marketing is a source of product information for many consumers 12 and is increasing rapidly. 4,[13][14][15][16] Previous research has found that exposure to tobacco marketing can result in public misinformation about the risks of tobacco use 17,18 and incorrect beliefs. 19,20 Consumers may believe that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes partly due to the marketing messaging, which make e-cigarettes look more appealing and less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge About E-Cigarette Constituents and Regulation: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Young Adults

Sanders‐Jackson

Tan

Bigman

et al. 2014

NICTOB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To examine young adults' knowledge of e-cigarette constituents and regulation and its association with product use and self-reported exposure to marketing. Methods: Young adults (18-34 years, N = 1,247) from a U.S. web panel were surveyed in March 2014. Using multinomial logistic regressions, self-reported exposure to marketing was examined as a predictor of whether participants responded correctly (reference category), incorrectly, or "don't know" to four knowledge items-whether e-cigarettes contain nicotine, contain toxic chemicals, are regulated by government for safety, and are regulated for use as a cessation aid. Analyses adjusted for demographics and smoking status and were weighted to match the U.S. young adult population. Results: Most respondents did not know if e-cigarettes, contain toxic chemicals (48%), are regulated for safety (61%), and are regulated as cessation aids (68%); fewer than 37% answered all of these items correctly. Current users of e-cigarettes (past 30 days) had a lower likelihood of being incorrect about safety testing (p = .006) and being regulated as a cessation aid (p = .017). Higher exposure to e-cigarette marketing was associated with a lower likelihood of responding "don't know" than being correct, and with a higher likelihood of being incorrect as opposed to correct about e-cigarettes containing nicotine. Conclusions: Knowledge about e-cigarette constituents and regulation was low among young adults, who are the largest consumer group for these products. Interventions, such as warning labels or information campaigns, may be necessary to educate and correct misinformation about these products.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge About E-Cigarette Constituents and Regulation: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Young Adults

Sanders‐Jackson

Tan

Bigman

et al. 2014

NICTOB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, our findings showed that although "lights" smokers who believed that "lights" are less harmful were more likely to believe that "lights" are smoother (80.4%), most "nonlights" smokers (81.2%) also held similar beliefs. We did not ask about ever use of "lights", and so we do not know whether perceptions of smoothness by "non-lights" users were based on past actual sensory experience with "lights", or whether this is consistent with previous research 30,31 that showed that perceptions of harm are also influenced by product packaging and marketing (e.g., lighter colors on cigarette packages are perceived as less harmful). The lack of a difference in both beliefs (i.e., smoothness and harmfulness) between "lights" and "non-lights" smokers in our study, demonstrates the strength of the perceived linkage between smoothness and harmfulness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Misperceptions about “light” cigarettes among smokers in Zambia: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Zambia Survey

Kaai¹,

Fong²,

Green³

et al. 2016

Tob. Prev. Cessation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION Little is known about beliefs about "light" cigarettes ("lights") in African countries where both tobacco industry activity and tobacco control efforts are intensifying. This study in Zambia is the first to examine the prevalence and beliefs about "lights" among smokers in Africa. METHODS Data are from 1,214 smokers participating in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Zambia Wave 1 Survey (2012), a multi-stage clustered sampling design, face-to-face nationally representative probability sample of tobacco users and non-users aged 15 years and older. RESULTS 17.0% of respondents' usual brand of cigarettes was "lights". 36.5% of smokers believed that "lights" are less harmful; beliefs differed by brand type (42.1% "lights" vs. 38.2% "non-lights"). 42.0% of smokers believed that "lights" are smoother on the throat and chest than regular cigarettes with beliefs differing by brand type. Among smokers who believed that "lights" are smoother, 81.0% believed that these cigarettes are less harmful, much higher than the 4.1% of smokers who did not believe that "lights" are smoother. Smoothness beliefs about "lights" was the strongest predictor of the belief that "lights" are less harmful (p<0.001, OR=131.13, 95% CI 59.4 to 289.5). CONCLUSIONS Zambian smokers incorrectly believe that "lights" are less harmful. The highly strong association between the belief that "lights" are smoother and the belief that "lights" are less harmful suggests that tobacco control policies need to use a multi-pronged approach including product regulation, banning misleading descriptors and menthol, and implementing sustained longterm public education campaigns to combat sensory beliefs and misperceptions about "lights".

show abstract

“…The public health debate addresses three main themes: (i) reduction of the symbolic value of tobacco packaging (Wakefield et al, 2012;Borland et al, 2013;Ford et al, 2013a;Moodie and MacKintosh, 2013;Scheffels and Saebø, 2013); (ii) reinforcement of consumers' health attitude towards smoking, increased recall and perceived seriousness of health messages (Hammond et al, 2009;Munafò et al, 2011;AlHamdani, 2013;Maynard et al, 2013;Moodie and MacKintosh, 2013); (iii) evidence of behavioural change (e.g., attempts to quit, quit-line calls, reduced consumption; Moodie et al, 2012Chantler, 2014;Maynard, 2014). For a systematic review of plain packaging conducted from a public health perspective, see Moodie et al (2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Paternalistic Justification of an Agenda Setting Public Health Policy: The Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging

Anker

2016

Public Health Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the paternalistic justification of the world's first mandatory tobacco plain packaging policy, which came into force in Australia in 2012. The policy is setting international precedence, with a range of developed and developing countries planning and implementing similar policies. Understanding the paternalistic dimension of the policy is therefore of imminent international importance. The policy meets important ethical benchmarks such as respect for citizens' self-interests and protection of others against harm. However, plain packaging faces a number of ethical challenges: the policy is a controversial type of paternalism; it runs partially against the harm principle; and it fails to meet key operational criteria.

show abstract

Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth

Cited by 139 publications

References 18 publications

Knowledge About E-Cigarette Constituents and Regulation: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Young Adults

Knowledge About E-Cigarette Constituents and Regulation: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Young Adults

Misperceptions about “light” cigarettes among smokers in Zambia: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Zambia Survey

Analysis of the Paternalistic Justification of an Agenda Setting Public Health Policy: The Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About