Noar Seth M, Hall Marissa G, Francis Diane B, Ribisl Kurt M, Pepper Jessica K, Brewer Noel T
School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Tob Control. 2016 May;25(3):341-54. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051978. Epub 2015 May 6.
To inform international research and policy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature on pictorial cigarette pack warnings.
We systematically searched 7 computerised databases in April 2013 using several search terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles.
We included studies that used an experimental protocol to test cigarette pack warnings and reported data on both pictorial and text-only conditions. 37 studies with data on 48 independent samples (N=33,613) met criteria.
Two independent coders coded all study characteristics. Effect sizes were computed from data extracted from study reports and were combined using random effects meta-analytic procedures.
Pictorial warnings were more effective than text-only warnings for 12 of 17 effectiveness outcomes (all p<0.05). Relative to text-only warnings, pictorial warnings (1) attracted and held attention better; (2) garnered stronger cognitive and emotional reactions; (3) elicited more negative pack attitudes and negative smoking attitudes and (4) more effectively increased intentions to not start smoking and to quit smoking. Participants also perceived pictorial warnings as being more effective than text-only warnings across all 8 perceived effectiveness outcomes.
The evidence from this international body of literature supports pictorial cigarette pack warnings as more effective than text-only warnings. Gaps in the literature include a lack of assessment of smoking behaviour and a dearth of theory-based research on how warnings exert their effects.
为给国际研究和政策提供信息,我们对有关香烟包装图片警示的实验性文献进行了荟萃分析。
2013年4月,我们使用多个检索词系统检索了7个计算机化数据库。我们还检索了相关文章的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了采用实验方案测试香烟包装警示并报告了图片和纯文字两种情况下数据的研究。37项包含48个独立样本数据(N = 33,613)的研究符合标准。
两名独立编码员对所有研究特征进行编码。效应量根据从研究报告中提取的数据计算得出,并使用随机效应荟萃分析程序进行合并。
在17项有效性结果中的12项上,图片警示比纯文字警示更有效(所有p<0.05)。相对于纯文字警示,图片警示(1)吸引并保持注意力的效果更好;(2)引发更强的认知和情感反应;(3)引发更多负面的包装态度和负面的吸烟态度;(4)更有效地增加不开始吸烟和戒烟的意愿。在所有8项感知有效性结果中,参与者也认为图片警示比纯文字警示更有效。
来自这一国际文献体系的证据支持香烟包装图片警示比纯文字警示更有效。文献中的差距包括缺乏对吸烟行为的评估以及缺乏关于警示如何发挥作用的基于理论的研究。