Evaluating the impact of introducing standardized packaging with larger health-warning labels in England: findings from adult smokers within the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European (EU) Tobacco Product Directive (TPD) was implemented in May 2016 to regulate the design and labelling of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. At the same time, the UK introduced standardized packaging measures, whereas Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain did not. This study examines the impact of introducing standardized packaging in England using a quasi-experimental design. METHODS: Data from adult smokers in Waves 1 (2016; N=9547) and 2 (2018; N=9724) from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation surveys (England) and EUREST-PLUS surveys (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain) were used. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate changes in pack/brand appeal, salience of health-warning labels (HWLs) and perceived relative harm of different brands in England (where larger HWLs and standardized packaging were implemented), vs. each EU country (where only larger HWLs were implemented). RESULTS: There was an increase in the percentage of respondents from Germany, Hungary and Poland reporting they did not like the look of the pack (4.7%, 9.6%, and 14.2%, respectively), but the largest increase was in England (41.0%). Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase in the salience of HWLs in Hungary, Poland and Romania (17.0%, 13.9%, and 15.3%, respectively), but the largest increase was in England (27.6%). Few differences were observed in cross-country comparisons of the perceived relative harm of different brands. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that standardized packaging reduces pack appeal and enhances the salience of HWLs over and above the effects of larger HWLs. Findings provide additional evidence and support for incorporating standardized packaging into the EU TPD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".