Is Consumer Response to Plain/Standardised Tobacco Packaging Consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies Martine Stead 1 *, Crawford Moodie 1 , Kathryn Angus 1 , Linda Bauld 1 , Ann McNeill 2 , James Thomas 3 , Gerard Hastings 1 , Kate Hinds 3 , Alison O’Mara-Eves 3 , Irene Kwan 3 , Richard I. Purves 1 , Stuart L. Bryce 1 1 Institute for Social Marketing & Cancer Research United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco Control Research and United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom, 2 Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, London, United Kingdom, 3 Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, United Kingdom Abstract Background and Objectives: Standardised or ‘plain’ tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm. Methods: Electronic databases were searched and researchers in the field were contacted to identify studies. Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging. Twenty-five quantitative studies reported relevant outcomes and met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Studies that explored the impact of package design on appeal consistently found that standardised packaging reduced the appeal of cigarettes and smoking, and was associated with perceived lower quality, poorer taste and less desirable smoker identities. Although findings were mixed, standardised packs tended to increase the salience and effectiveness of health warnings in terms of recall, attention, believability and seriousness, with effects being mediated by the warning size, type and position on pack. Pack colour was found to influence perceptions of product harm and strength, with darker coloured standardised packs generally perceived as containing stronger tasting and more harmful cigarettes than fully branded packs; lighter coloured standardised packs suggested weaker and less harmful cigarettes. Findings were largely consistent, irrespective of location and sample. Conclusions: The evidence strongly suggests that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of packaging and of smoking in general; that it will go some way to reduce consumer misperceptions regarding product harm based upon package design; and will help make the legally required on-pack health warnings more salient. Citation: Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L, McNeill A, et al. (2013) Is Consumer Response to Plain/Standardised Tobacco Packaging Consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. PLoS ONE 8(10): e75919. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075919 Editor: Philippa Middleton, The University of Adelaide, Australia Received May 13, 2013; Accepted August 19, 2013; Published October 16, 2013 Copyright: ß 2013 Stead et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This review was funded by the Department of Health through the Public Health Research Consortium (PHRC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health. Information about the wider programme of the PHRC is available from http://www.phrc.lshtm.ac. uk. The University of Stirling and King’s College London authors are members of the United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco Control Studies (http://www.ukctcs.org). Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research United Kingdom, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the National Institute of Health Research, under the auspices of the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: AM, JT, KH, AO and IK state no competing interests. The Institute for Social Marketing and Centre for Tobacco Control Studies at the University of Stirling receive research funding from Cancer Research United Kingdom. MS, CM, KA, LB, RIP and SLB state no competing interests other than the institutional funding received from Cancer Research United Kingdom. GH has served as an expert witness in four cases: 1) in the United Kingdom for the plaintiff (McTear) versus the tobacco industry; and for 2) the United Kingdom Department of Health, 3) the Irish Government and 4) the Norwegian Government’s defence of suits by the tobacco industry. GH states no financial competing interests. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. * E-mail: martine.stead@stir.ac.uk PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e75919