Policy options for extending standardized tobacco packaging
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Smoking is a public health problem that will cause 1 billion deaths in the 21st century, if current smoking patterns persist. (1) Tobacco companies' aggressive marketing has fostered tobacco use by creating brands and linking these to attributes and identities that users and susceptible non-users value. Although many countries now restrict traditional marketing media, tobacco companies have developed increasingly creative strategies to encourage experimentation with tobacco among non-users and deter quitting among users. Packaging has provided an important and until recently, largely unregulated, conduit for these marketing messages and has communicated appealing imagery to young people while using known and familiar brand symbols to reassure existing tobacco users. The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) (2) obliges Parties to address tobacco packaging. Implementation guidelines for Articles II (3) and 13 (4) include consideration of plain packaging and recognize the myriad ways in which tobacco companies have used packaging to promote tobacco use. In response, Australia, France, Georgia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have either introduced or will soon be introducing standardized or plain packaging. Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Thailand have already passed legislation to introduce plain packaging, and several other countries (including Belgium, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Sri Lanka, among others) are formally considering this policy. Plain packaging replaces the attractive brand livery displayed on tobacco packs with an aversive colour and standardized text, and is typically combined with larger pictorial warning labels, if these are not already in place. 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 smokings appeal among young people, (6) increased demand for cessation support and decreased smoking prevalence. (8) Evaluations confirm predictions from experimental and other studies used to support the introduction of this policy. (8) Despite the intuitive logic of using packaging to deter rather than facilitate experimentation with tobacco products, other countries have been cautious in following Australia's approach. The time taken for plain packaging to be more widely adopted and implemented in other countries has caused some frustration among public health researchers and advocates. Nevertheless, this time lag has also provided an opportunity to examine how tobacco companies have reacted to Australia's new policy environment, and to consider whether and where Australian legislation could be extended. We suggest that countries planning to introduce standardized packaging have an opportunity to innovate in at least four ways: (i) restricting or banning brand variant names; (ii) developing larger and more salient onpack warnings; (iii) requiring tobacco products themselves to use dissuasive colours; and (iv) using packaging to create cessation portals that direct tobacco users to quit support. First, the introduction of standardized packaging in Australia saw a rapid increase in brand variant names (or descriptors) such as Marlboro Silver Fine Scent, Winfield Optimum Crush Sky and Peter Stuyvesant New York Blend. (9) These variant names attempt to recreate connotations formerly aroused by visual brand imagery and aim to reassure smokers, deter quitting and potentially attract new users. Recent work suggests the more descriptors used, the more attractive a pack appears. (10) Variants potentially mislead users by linking tobacco to appealing attributes or by minimizing the harm caused by tobacco use and serve no purpose other than to create marketing appeals. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,042 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,044 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».