Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Oct 16;8(10):e75919.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075919. eCollection 2013.

Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies

Martine Stead  1 , 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
Affiliations

Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies

Martine Stead et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: 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.

Methods: 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 Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging.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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: AM, JT, KH, AO and IK state no competing interests. The Institute for Social Marketing and Centre for Tobacco Control Studies at the University of Stirling receive research funding from Cancer Research United Kingdom. MS, CM, KA, LB, RIP and SLB state no competing interests other than the institutional funding received from Cancer Research United Kingdom. GH has served as an expert witness in four cases: 1) in the United Kingdom for the plaintiff (McTear) versus the tobacco industry; and for 2) the United Kingdom Department of Health, 3) the Irish Government and 4) the Norwegian Government's defence of suits by the tobacco industry. GH states no financial competing interests. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Literature search and study selection process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization (2008) WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008: The MPOWER package. Geneva: World Health Organization.
    1. Eriksen M, Mackay J, Ross H (2012) The tobacco atlas (4th Edition). Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society.
    1. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL (2006) Global burden of disease and risk factors. New York: The World Bank and Oxford University Press. - PubMed
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services (2004) The health consequences of smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
    1. Öberg M, Jaakola MS, Woodward A, Peruga A, Prüss-Ustün A (2011) Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. Lancet 377: 139–146 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61388-8 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types