↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Is Consumer Response to Plain/Standardised Tobacco Packaging Consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
34 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Is Consumer Response to Plain/Standardised Tobacco Packaging Consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0075919
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martine Stead, Crawford Moodie, Kathryn Angus, Linda Bauld, Ann McNeill, James Thomas, Gerard Hastings, Kate Hinds, Alison O'Mara-Eves, Irene Kwan, Richard I. Purves, Stuart L. Bryce

Abstract

Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 128 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Social Sciences 16 12%
Psychology 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 36 27%