Awareness and correlates of noticing changes to cigarette packaging design after implementation of the European Tobacco Products Directive: findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which went into effect in May 2016, regulates packaging design and labelling of cigarettes and roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco. The aim of the current study was to examine whether smokers and recent quitters in six European Union (EU) countries (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain) reported noticing TPD-related changes to packaging, and correlates of noticing these changes. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the Wave 2 of the ITC 6 European Country Survey in 2018 after implementation of the TPD. Bivariate analyses included adult smokers (n = 5597) and recent quitters (n = 412). Adjusted logistic regression analyses were restricted to the subset of current smokers (n = 5597) and conducted using SAS-callable SUDAAN. RESULTS: Over half of smokers (58.2%) and 30% of quitters noticed at least one of five types of TPD-related pack changes. Over one-quarter of all respondents noticed changes to health warnings (30.0%), standardized openings (27.7%), minimum pack unit size (27.9%), and the removal of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide information (26.7%) on packaging. Cross-country differences were observed across all measures, with noticing all pack changes markedly lower in Spain than the other countries. Correlates of noticing specific pack changes included sociodemographic characteristics, smoking behaviours and related to packaging. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first cross-country studies to examine the extent to which TPD changes to cigarette and RYO tobacco packaging are being noticed by smokers and recent quitters. Findings indicate that the majority of smokers noticed at least one type of pack change, but this varied across countries and sub-populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".