The perceptions of UK youth of branded and standardized, 'plain' cigarette packaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco packaging is an important form of promotion. Standardizing cigarette packages ('plain' packaging) represents a novel tobacco control policy. This study examined perceptions of branded and standardized cigarette packages among British youth. METHODS: Seven hundred twelve youth aged 11-17 completed an online survey. Participants viewed pairs of packages altered using a 3 × 2 factorial design: health warning type (40% text, 40% pictorial or 80% pictorial) × standardized pack colour (white vs. brown). A discrete-choice task was used in which participants selected packs based on attractiveness, taste, tar, health risk, impact of health warning and enticement to start smoking. Participants also compared regular Silk Cut and 'Superslims' Silk Cut packs. Participants completed a final selection task from two standardized and two branded packs. RESULTS: Warning type was significantly associated with all six outcomes: packs with larger pictorial warnings were more likely to be perceived as less attractive, less smooth, greater health risk, higher tar delivery, more effective health warnings and less likely to encourage initiation. The same pattern was found for brown vs. white standardized packages, with the exception of attractiveness and initiation. Compared with the regular Silk Cut pack, the 'Superslims' Silk Cut pack was perceived as significantly more favourable on all six outcomes. Finally, among respondents who selected a pack in the pack selection task, 95.1% selected a branded pack vs. 4.9% who selected a standardized pack. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the size of pictorial health warnings and standardizing the appearance and shape of packages may discourage smoking initiation among young people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".