Limits...
Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents ’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands?

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the impact of plain packaging of cigarettes with enhanced graphic health warnings on adolescents’ perceptions of pack image and perceived brand differences.

Methods: Cross-sectional school-based surveys conducted in 2011 (prior to introduction of new cigarette packaging) and in 2013 (7–12 months afterwards). Students aged 12–17 years (2011 n=6338; 2013 n=5915) indicated whether they had seen a cigarette pack in previous 6 months. Students rated the character of four popular cigarette brands, indicated level of agreement regarding differences between brands in ease of smoking, quitting, addictiveness, harmfulness and look of pack; and indicated positive and negative perceptions of pack image. Changes in responses of students seeing cigarette packs in the previous 6 months (2011: 60%; 2013: 65%) were examined.

Results: Positive character ratings for each brand reduced significantly between 2011 and 2013. Changes were found for four of five statements reflecting brand differences. Significantly fewer students in 2013 than 2011 agreed that ‘some brands have better looking packs than others’ (2011: 43%; 2013: 25%, p<0.001), with larger decreases found among smokers (interaction p<0.001). Packs were rated less positively and more negatively in 2013 than in 2011 (p<0.001). The decrease in positive image ratings was greater among smokers.

Conclusions: The introduction of standardised packaging has reduced the appeal of cigarette packs. Further research could determine if continued exposure to standardised packs creates more uncertainty or disagreement regarding brand differences in ease of smoking and quitting, perceived addictiveness and harms.

No MeSH data available.


Adjusted proportions of students agreeing, disagreeing or who ‘don’t know’ if ‘some brands are more addictive than others’ (above) or ‘some brands have better looking packs than others’ (below) in 2011 and 2013 by smoking status (proportions adjusted for age, sex, education sector and state).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4401345&req=5

TOBACCOCONTROL2014052084F1: Adjusted proportions of students agreeing, disagreeing or who ‘don’t know’ if ‘some brands are more addictive than others’ (above) or ‘some brands have better looking packs than others’ (below) in 2011 and 2013 by smoking status (proportions adjusted for age, sex, education sector and state).

Mentions: There was a significant interaction between year and smoking status for two items: ‘some cigarette brands have better looking packs than others’ (interaction: p<0.001) and ‘some cigarette brands are more addictive than others’ (interaction: p<0.003). Figure 1 shows the adjusted proportions by smoking status and year for these two items. For the item ‘some cigarette brands have better looking packs than others’, the decrease in the proportion agreeing with this statement was greatest among those involved with smoking. For the statement ‘some cigarette brands are more addictive than others’, change was greatest among non-smokers, with no significant change in the responses of smokers.


Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents ’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands?
Adjusted proportions of students agreeing, disagreeing or who ‘don’t know’ if ‘some brands are more addictive than others’ (above) or ‘some brands have better looking packs than others’ (below) in 2011 and 2013 by smoking status (proportions adjusted for age, sex, education sector and state).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4401345&req=5

TOBACCOCONTROL2014052084F1: Adjusted proportions of students agreeing, disagreeing or who ‘don’t know’ if ‘some brands are more addictive than others’ (above) or ‘some brands have better looking packs than others’ (below) in 2011 and 2013 by smoking status (proportions adjusted for age, sex, education sector and state).
Mentions: There was a significant interaction between year and smoking status for two items: ‘some cigarette brands have better looking packs than others’ (interaction: p<0.001) and ‘some cigarette brands are more addictive than others’ (interaction: p<0.003). Figure 1 shows the adjusted proportions by smoking status and year for these two items. For the item ‘some cigarette brands have better looking packs than others’, the decrease in the proportion agreeing with this statement was greatest among those involved with smoking. For the statement ‘some cigarette brands are more addictive than others’, change was greatest among non-smokers, with no significant change in the responses of smokers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the impact of plain packaging of cigarettes with enhanced graphic health warnings on adolescents&rsquo; perceptions of pack image and perceived brand differences.

Methods: Cross-sectional school-based surveys conducted in 2011 (prior to introduction of new cigarette packaging) and in 2013 (7&ndash;12&#8197;months afterwards). Students aged 12&ndash;17&#8197;years (2011 n=6338; 2013 n=5915) indicated whether they had seen a cigarette pack in previous 6&#8197;months. Students rated the character of four popular cigarette brands, indicated level of agreement regarding differences between brands in ease of smoking, quitting, addictiveness, harmfulness and look of pack; and indicated positive and negative perceptions of pack image. Changes in responses of students seeing cigarette packs in the previous 6&#8197;months (2011: 60%; 2013: 65%) were examined.

Results: Positive character ratings for each brand reduced significantly between 2011 and 2013. Changes were found for four of five statements reflecting brand differences. Significantly fewer students in 2013 than 2011 agreed that &lsquo;some brands have better looking packs than others&rsquo; (2011: 43%; 2013: 25%, p&lt;0.001), with larger decreases found among smokers (interaction p&lt;0.001). Packs were rated less positively and more negatively in 2013 than in 2011 (p&lt;0.001). The decrease in positive image ratings was greater among smokers.

Conclusions: The introduction of standardised packaging has reduced the appeal of cigarette packs. Further research could determine if continued exposure to standardised packs creates more uncertainty or disagreement regarding brand differences in ease of smoking and quitting, perceived addictiveness and harms.

No MeSH data available.