Search

ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) retail display exposure on attitudes to smoking and vaping (susceptibility to tobacco smoking and using e-cigarettes, and perceptions of the harms of smoking and e-cigarette use).DesignBetween-subjects randomised experiment using a 2 (e-cigarette retail display visibility: high vs low)×2 (proportion of e-cigarette images: 75% vs 25%) factorial design.SettingOnline via the Qualtrics survey platform.ParticipantsUK children aged 13–17 years (n=1034), recruited through a research agency.InterventionParticipants viewed 12 images of retail displays that contained e-cigarette display images or unrelated product images. E-cigarette display images were either high or low visibility, based on a conspicuousness score. Participants were randomised to one of four groups, with e-cigarette display visibility and proportion of e-cigarette images, compared with images of unrelated products, manipulated: (1) 75% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (2) 25% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (3) 75% e-cigarettes, low visibility; (4) 25% e-cigarettes, low visibility.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was susceptibility to smoking (among never smokers only). Secondary outcomes were susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (among never vapers only), and perceptions of smoking and e-cigarette harm (all participants).ResultsNeither e-cigarette retail display visibility, nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to smoking (visibility: OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.13, p=0.24; proportion: OR=1.34, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82, p=0.054 (reference: low visibility, not susceptible)).Planned subgroup analyses indicated that exposure to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking among children who visited retail stores more regularly (n=524, OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.43, p=0.034), and those who passed the attention check (n=880, OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.031).In addition, neither e-cigarette retail display visibility nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (visibility: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43, p=0.65; proportion: OR=1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64, p=0.18).Greater visibility of e-cigarette retail displays reduced perceived harm of smoking (mean difference (MD)=−0.19, 95% CI −0.34 to −0.04, p=0.016). There was no evidence that the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed had an effect (MD=−0.07, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.09, p=0.40).Perceived harm of e-cigarette use did not appear to be affected by e-cigarette retail display visibility (MD=−0.12, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.05, p=0.16) or by the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed (MD=−0.10, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.07, p=0.24).ConclusionsThere is no evidence in the full sample to suggest that children’s susceptibility to smoking is increased by exposure to higher visibility e-cigarette retail displays, or to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images. However, for regular store visitors or those paying more attention, viewing a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking. In addition, viewing higher visibility e-cigarette images reduced perceived harm of smoking. A review of the current regulatory discrepancy between tobacco and e-cigarette point-of-sale marketing is warranted.Trial registration numberISRCTN18215632.

Background Observational evidence suggests that cigarette pack size – the number of cigarettes in a single pack – is associated with consumption but experimental evidence of a causal relationship is lacking. The tobacco industry is introducing increasingly large packs, in the absence of maximum cigarette pack size regulation. In Australia, the minimum pack size is 20 but packs of up to 50 cigarettes are available. We aimed to estimate the impact on smoking of reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes per pack. Method A two-stage adaptive parallel group RCT in which Australian smokers who usually purchase packs containing ≥25 cigarettes were randomised to use only packs containing either 20 (intervention) or their usual packs (control) for four weeks. The primary outcome, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day, was measured through collecting all finished cigarette packs, labelled with the number of cigarettes participants smoked. An interim sample size re-estimation was used to evaluate the possibility of detecting a meaningful difference in the primary outcome. Results The interim analysis, conducted when 124 participants had been randomised, suggested 1122 additional participants needed to be randomised for sufficient power to detect a meaningful effect. This exceeded pre-specified criteria for feasible recruitment, and data collection was terminated accordingly. Analysis of complete data (n = 79) indicated that the mean cigarettes smoked per day was 15.9 (SD = 8.5) in the intervention arm and 16.8 (SD = 6.7) among controls (difference − 0.9: 95%CI = − 4.3, 2.6). Conclusion It remains unclear whether reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes reduces cigarette consumption. Importantly, the results of this study provide no evidence that capping cigarette pack sizes would be ineffective at reducing smoking. The limitations identified in this study can inform a more efficient RCT, which is urgently required to address the dearth of experimental evidence on the impact of large cigarette pack sizes on smoking. Trial registration 10.1186/ISRCTN34202533

Reducing harmful consumption of food (including non-alcoholic drinks) and alcoholic drinks would prevent much disease. Evidence from tobacco control shows that placing health warning labels (HWLs) on these products reduces their selection and consumption. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane methods to assess the impact on selection (including hypothetical selection) or consumption of food or alcoholic drinks with image-and-text (sometimes termed 'pictorial') and text-only HWLs placed on these products. Studies were required to be randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials. Fourteen studies were included, three on alcohol, eleven on food. For our primary outcomes, eleven studies measured selection and one measured consumption (two measured only other secondary outcomes). Meta-analysis of twelve comparisons from nine studies (n=12,635) found HWLs reduced selection of the targeted product compared to a control group with no HWL (RR=0.74 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.80)), with participants 26% less likely to choose a product displaying a HWL. A planned subgroup analysis suggested a larger effect on selection of image-and-text HWLs (RR=0.65 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.80)) than text-only HWLs (RR=0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85)), but this difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest significant potential for HWLs to reduce selection of food and alcohol, but all experimental studies to date were conducted in laboratory or online settings with outcomes assessed immediately after a single exposure. Studies in field and more naturalistic laboratory settings are urgently needed to estimate the potential effects of HWLs on food and alcohol. published

Background Straight-sided glasses can slow the rate of lager consumption in a laboratory setting compared with curved glasses. Slower drinking rates may lower overall alcohol consumption. Glass shape is therefore a potential target for intervention. The aim of this randomised crossover trial was to estimate the impact of serving draught beer and cider in straight-sided glasses, compared with usual, predominantly curved glasses, on alcohol sales for on-site consumption in bars. Methods Twenty-four bars in England completed two intervention periods (A) and two control periods (B) in a randomised order: 1) BABA; 2) BAAB; 3) ABBA; or 4) ABAB. Each period lasted two weeks and involved serving draught beer and cider in either straight-sided glasses (A) or the venue's usual glasses (≥75% curved; B). The primary outcome was the mean volume (in litres) of draught beer and cider sold weekly, compared between A and B periods using a paired-samples t-test on aggregate data. A regression model adjusted for season, order, special events, and busyness. Findings Mean weekly volume sales of draught beer and cider was 690·9 L (SD 491·3 L) across A periods and 732·5 L (SD 501·0 L) across B periods. The adjusted mean difference (A minus B) was 8·9 L per week (95% CI -45·5 to 63·3; p = 0·737). Interpretation This study provides no clear evidence that using straight-sided glasses, compared with usual, predominantly curved glasses, reduces the volume of draught beer and cider sold for on-site consumption in bars., Graphical abstract Image 1, HIGHLIGHTS • Straight-sided glasses do not reduce beer sales in bars versus usual glasses. • Usual beer glasses are predominantly curved, but there are many different types. • Other interventions may warrant attention, such as reducing serving sizes.

Background Health warning labels (HWLs) using images and text to depict the negative health consequences of tobacco consumption are effective and acceptable for changing smoking-related outcomes. There is currently limited evidence concerning their potential use for reducing consumption of alcoholic drinks and energy-dense foods. The aim of this research was to describe the potential effectiveness and acceptability of image-and-text (also known as pictorial or graphic) HWLs applied to: i. alcoholic drinks and ii. energy-dense snack foods. Methods Two online studies were conducted using between-subjects designs with general population samples. Participants rated one of 21 image-and-text HWLs on alcoholic drinks (n = 5528), or one of 18 image-and-text HWLs on energy-dense snacks (n = 4618). HWLs comprised a graphic image with explanatory text, depicting, respectively, seven diseases linked to excess alcohol consumption, and six diseases linked to excess energy intake. Diseases included heart disease and various cancers. Outcomes were negative emotional arousal, desire to consume the labelled product, and acceptability of the label. Free-text comments relating to HWLs were content analysed. Results For both alcoholic drinks and energy-dense snacks, HWLs depicting bowel cancer generated the highest levels of negative emotional arousal and lowest desire to consume the product, but were the least acceptable. Acceptability was generally low for HWLs applied to alcohol, with 3 of 21 rated as acceptable, and was generally high for snacks, with 13 of 18 rated as acceptable. The majority of free-text comments expressed negative reactions to HWLs on alcohol or energy-dense snacks. Conclusions Image-and-text health warning labels depicting bowel cancer showed greatest potential for reducing selection and consumption of alcoholic drinks and energy-dense snacks, although they were the least acceptable. Laboratory and field studies are needed to assess their impact on selection and consumption.

BackgroundCigarette pack sizes vary globally between 10 and 50 cigarettes per pack. Many countries have introduced tobacco control legislation that mandates a minimum size to reduce affordability and youth smoking. By contrast, very few countries regulate maximum pack size. Larger, non-standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco-related harm.Argument and analysisWe first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Second, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers.ConclusionPack size is associated with consumption, and consumption is associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesise that Government regulation to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.