MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406333487 · doi:10.1111/add.16763

Association of fully branded, standardized packaging and limited flavor and brand descriptors of e‐liquids with interest in trying products among youths in Great Britain

2025· article· en· W4406333487 on OpenAlexaff
Eve Taylor, Erikas Simonavičius, Matilda Nottage, Ann McNeill, Deborah Arnott, Hazel Cheeseman, David Hammond, Jessica L. Reid, Pete Driezen, Kimberly D’Mello, Katherine East

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKing's College LondonImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDepartment of Health and Social CareBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UK
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)FlavorAdvertisingPackaging and labelingPsychologyBrand namesEnvironmental healthBusinessMedicineMarketingFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many vaping products feature bright colors and novel brand names and flavor descriptors, which may appeal to youth. We measured the strength of the associations between e-liquid packaging design (branded, white standardized or white standardized limiting brand and flavor descriptors) and perceived peer interest in trying the e-liquids among youth. DESIGN: A between-subjects online experiment. SETTING: The Action on Smoking and Health Smokefree Great Britain (GB) Youth 2021 online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 1628 youth aged 11-18, 51.9% female, 71.8% socioeconomic status ABC1 (the three highest Market Research Society grades). MEASUREMENTS: Participants were randomized to view a set of three images of e-liquids from one of three packaging conditions: (1) fully branded (control), (2) white standardized with usual brand names and flavor descriptors or (3) white standardized with coded brand names and limited flavor descriptors. Participants were asked which e-liquid they thought people their age would be most interested in trying and could select a product, 'none of these', or 'do not know'. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to test associations between selecting 'none of these' ('no interest') versus any product ('interest') or 'do not know' and packaging condition. Analyses were adjusted for sex, age, socioeconomic status, vaping status and smoking status. FINDINGS: Compared with fully branded packaging (22.7%; reference category), youth had higher odds of reporting no perceived peer interest in trying e-liquids in standardized packs with brand codes and limited flavor descriptors [30.3%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.53-2.79], but not standardized packs with usual descriptors (23.1%, AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.89-1.65). Youth had higher odds of reporting no perceived peer interest in e-liquids in white standardized packs with brand codes and limited flavor descriptors (30.3%, AOR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.29-2.16, P < 0.001) compared with standardized packs with usual descriptors (23.1%; reference category). CONCLUSION: Standardized e-liquid packaging that limits flavor and brand descriptors may reduce the youth appeal of e-liquids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsFrench-language works237,207