Impact of plain packaging of tobacco products on smoking in adults and children: an elicitation of international experts’ estimates

BMC Public Health

Theresa M Marteau¹  David Spiegelhalter²  Rachel Pechey¹ 

[1]Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK

[2]Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK

关键词: Expert elicitation;    Plain packaging;    Tobacco;   

Others  :  1162661
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-18

 received in 2012-08-20, accepted in 2013-01-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Governments sometimes face important decisions in the absence of direct evidence. In these cases, expert elicitation methods can be used to quantify uncertainty. We report the results of an expert elicitation study regarding the likely impact on smoking rates in adults and children of plain packaging of tobacco products.

Methods

Thirty-three tobacco control experts were recruited from the UK (n = 14), Australasia (n = 12) and North America (n = 7). Experts’ estimates were individually elicited via telephone interviews, and then linearly pooled. Elicited estimates consisted of (1) the most likely, (2) the highest possible, and (3) the lowest possible value for the percentage of (a) adult smokers and (b) children trying smoking, two years after the introduction of plain packaging (all other things being constant) in a target country in the expert’s region of residence.

Results

The median estimate for the impact on adult smoking prevalence was a 1 percentage point decline (99% range 2.25 to 0), and for the percentage of children trying smoking was a 3 percentage point decline (99% range 6.1 to 0), the latter estimated impact being larger than the former (P < 0.001, sign test). There were no differences in either estimate by region (I²: Adults: 0; Children: 0) but there was considerable variability between experts’ estimates within regions (I²: Adults: 0.91; Children: 0.89).

Conclusions

In the absence of direct evidence for the impact of introducing plain packaging on smoking rates in adults and children, this study shows that tobacco control experts felt the most likely outcomes would be a reduction in smoking prevalence in adults, and a greater reduction in the numbers of children trying smoking, although there was substantial variability in the estimated size of these impacts. No experts judged an increase in smoking as a likely outcome.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pechey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Baxter PJ, Aspinall WP, Neri A, Zuccaro G, Spence RJS, Cioni R, Woo G: Emergency planning and mitigation at vesuvius: a new evidence-based approach. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 2008, 178(3):454-473.
• [2]Oppenheimer M, O’Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S: The limits of consensus. Science 2007, 317(5844):1505-1506.
• [3]Fayers PM, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, Craven J, Uscinska B, Freedman LS: Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer 1999, 82(1):213-219.
• [4]World Health Organisation: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2003.
• [5]Australian Government: Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011: An Act to discourage the use of tobacco products, and for related purposes. Canberra: Australian Government; 2011.
• [6]Australian Government: Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Regulation 2012 (No 1). Canberra: Australian Government; 2012.
• [7]UK Department of Health: Healthy lives, healthy people: a tobacco control plan for England. London: UK Government; 2011.
• [8]Goldberg M, Leifeld J, Kindra G, Madill-Marshall J, Lefebvre J, Martohardjona N, Vredenberg H: When Packages Can’t Speak: Possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. Toronto, Canada: prepared for Health Canada; 1995.
• [9]Hoek J, Wong C, Gendall P, Louviere J, Cong K: Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers. Tob Control 2011, 20(3):183-188.
• [10]Moodie C, Mackintosh AM, Hastings G, Ford A: Young adult smokers’ perceptions of plain packaging: a pilot naturalistic study. Tob Control 2011, 20:367-373.
• [11]Thrasher JF, Rousu MC, Hammond D, Navarro A, Corrigan JR: Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and “plain” cigarette packaging: evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy 2011, 102(1):41-48.
• [12]Wakefield MA, Germain D, Durkin SJ: How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tob Control 2008, 17(6):416-421.
• [13]Freeman B, Chapman S, Rimmer M: The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction 2008, 103(4):580-590.
• [14]Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Angus K, Hinds K, Kwan I, Thomas J, Hastings G, O'Mara-Eves A: Plain tobacco packaging: A systematic review. London: Public Health Research Consortium; 2012.
• [15]Snowdon C: Plain Packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation. London, UK: Adam Smith Institute; 2012.
• [16]Padilla J: The impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in UK: a simulation exercise. Brussels: LECG Consulting Belgium, prepared for Philip Morris International; 2010.
• [17]Reed H: Analysis and review of J. Padilla, “The impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in the UK: a simulation exercise”. Colchester, UK: Landman Economics, prepared for Action on Smoking and Health; 2011.
• [18]Gervais A, O’Loughlin J, Meshefedjian G, Bancej C, Tremblay M: Milestones in the natural course of onset of cigarette use among adolescents. Can Med Assoc J 2006, 175(3):255-261.
• [19]Hora SC, Von Winterfeldt D: Nuclear waste and future societies: a look into the deep future. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 1997, 56(2):155-170.
• [20]Clemen RT, Winkler RL: Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources. Oper Res 1985, 33(2):427-442.
• [21]Hora SC: Probability Judgments for Continuous Quantities: Linear Combinations and Calibration. Manag Sci 2004, 50(5):597-604.
• [22]SHELF: the Sheffield Elicitation Framework. http://www.tonyohagan.co.uk/shelf/ webcite
• [23]Papathomas M, Hocking RJ: Bayesian Updating for Binary Variables: An Application in the UK Water Industry. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) 2003, 52(4):483-499.
• [24]Paddock SM, Ebener P: Subjective prior distributions for modeling longitudinal continuous outcomes with non-ignorable dropout. Stat Med 2009, 28(4):659-678.
• [25]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Canberra: AIHW; 2011. [Drug statistics series]
• [26]Bridges S, Gill V, Omole T, Sutton R, Wright V: Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People in England in 2010. London: NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care; 2011.
• [27]Reid JL, Hammond D: Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends, 2011 Edition. Waterloo, ON: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo; 2011.
• [28]Robinson S, Harris H: Smoking and drinking among adults, 2009: A report on the 2009 General Lifestyle Survey. London, UK: The Office for National Statistics; 2011.
• [29]Smith G, White V: Australian secondary school students’ use of tobacco, alcohol, and over-the-counter and illicit substances in 2008. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria; 2009.
• [30]O’ Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T: Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
• [31]Donovan R: Smokers’ and non-smokers’ reactions to standard packaging of cigarettes. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia; 1993.
• [32]Centre for Health Promotion: Effects of plain packaging on the image of tobacco products among youth. Toronto: University of Toronto; 1993.
• [33]World Health Organisation: WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2009: Implementing smoke-free environments. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2009.