Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: Re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Melendez Torres, G J ^a   Thomas, James ^b   Lorenc, Theo ^c   O'Mara Eves, Alison ^b   Petticrew, Mark ^d  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Narrative synthesis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; META ANALYSIS; NARRATIVE; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOBACCO; DRUG PACKAGING; MARKETING; PROCEDURES; SMOKING;

DRUG PACKAGING; HUMANS; MARKETING; SMOKING; TOBACCO PRODUCTS;

EID: 85054423416     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Melendez-Torres GJ, O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, Brunton G, Caird J, Petticrew M. Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Res Synth Methods. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1231 Ahead of print.
2. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster: University of Lancaster; 2006.
3. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
4. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Chapter 13: including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
5. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:359-69.
6. JP I, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ. 2008;336:1413-5.
7. Moodie C, Hastings G, Thomas J, Stead M, Angus K, Bauld L. Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. London: Public Health Research Consortium; 2012. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3327
8. Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L, McNeill A, Thomas J, et al. Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PLoS One. 2013;8:e75919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075919.
9. World Health Organization. WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
10. Japan Tobacco International. Response to the Department of Health's consultation on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. UK: Weybridge; 2012.
11. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
12. Van Den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, Sánchez-Meca J. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: a multilevel approach. Behav Res Methods. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0527-2 ahead of p.
13. White C. The impact of cigarette package design on young women in Brazil: brand appeal and perceptions of health risk. Waterloo: University of Waterloo; 2011.
14. 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;17:416-21.
15. Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13:579-88.
16. Hammond D, Daniel S, White CM. The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.003.
17. Germain D, Wakefield MA, Durkin SJ. Adolescents' perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? J Adolesc Health. 2010;46:385-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.009.
18. Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Rey J. Demarketing cigarettes through plain cigarette packaging. In: Actes du Congres international de l'AFM (association Francaise du Marketing). France: Le Mans; 2010. p. 17.
19. Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control. 2011;20:353-60.
20. Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, Lee A, McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. Eur J Pub Health. 2009;19:631-7.
21. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:674-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021.
22. Donovan RJ. Smokers' and non-smokers' reactions to standard packaging of cigarettes. Perth: University of Western Australia; 1993.
23. Morris SB, DeShon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:105-25. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.105.
24. Siegfried N, Pienaar DC, Ataguba JE, Volmink J, Kredo T, Jere M, et al. Restricting or banning alcohol advertising to reduce alcohol consumption in adults and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:CD010704. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010704.pub2.
25. Petticrew M, Shemilt I, Lorenc T, Marteau TM, Melendez-Torres GJ, O'Mara-Eves A, et al. Alcohol advertising and public health: systems perspectives versus narrow perspectives. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-207644 Ahead of print.
26. O'Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005.
27. Shepherd J. Judgment, resources, and complexity: a qualitative study of the experiences of systematic reviewers of health promotion. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:247-67.
28. Moreira T. Entangled evidence: knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;29:180-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00531.x.
29. Sandelowski M. Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64:104-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x.