↓ Skip to main content

Responses to textual and pictorial cigarette pack health warnings: findings from an exploratory cross-sectional survey study in Austria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Responses to textual and pictorial cigarette pack health warnings: findings from an exploratory cross-sectional survey study in Austria
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5342-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannes Mayerl, Erwin Stolz, Wolfgang Freidl

Abstract

Packaging and labelling tobacco products has emerged as an effective policy to reduce the global health burden of tobacco use. The main purpose of this study was to explore Austrian smokers' and ex-smokers' responses to both the textual and pictorial cigarette pack health warnings (CPHWs) recently implemented. We analysed self-reported data (N=500) from an Austrian cross-sectional survey that was conducted after the implementation of the new pictorial CPHWs in 2016. The results showed only weak effects of the CPHWs on the decision to quit or reduce smoking, and the level of impact of the CPHWs remained limited particularly because of smokers denying the ill-effects of tobacco use. Although the CPHWs seem to have the potential to promote a change in smoking behaviour, the warnings reached only a rather small group of smokers, while the majority of smokers appeared to remain unaffected by this intervention. Public health policies are challenged to increase the salience of CPHWs and to overcome smokers' denial of detrimental health effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#9,774,682
of 12,755,705 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,197
of 8,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,252
of 273,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,755,705 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them