dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
However, given that systematic reviews need to follow transparent and reproducible methods, and given the large volume of 'grey' literature in this area coming from a range of sources, we felt this was the best approach to take. The systematic inclusion of 'grey' literature in this area is particularly challenging, given the absence of study registers and study conduct guidelines for the range of study types included in this review (e. g. for randomised controlled trials, we could have searched ClinicalTrials. gov and the ISCTRN, whereas there is no systematic way of recording all of the study and data types relevant to this review). Where unpublished data were available that related to published studies, we take this into account in our main analysis. Other 'grey' literature of particular relevance to our primary outcomes is discussed in Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews, to provide additional context.
Three national repeat cross-sectional surveys in Australia found statistically significant reductions in measures of smoking in the period after standardised packaging was introduced. (Euromonitor International 2015). Two commercial datasets (In-foView and Aztec sales data) also exist, but although trends were cited by industry stakeholders the underlying data are not publicly available from either source and thus cannot be verified. Overall, findings from these routinely-collected data support our finding of a reduction in smoking prevalence in relation to the introduction of standardised packaging in Australia. These datasets provide information consistent with the studies included in our review, increasing our confidence in our results. However, they do not attempt to determine causality.
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "The lead researcher was blind to the condition assigned to participants until the participant returned on the final test day. To perform the randomisation, the lead researcher, who enrolled participants, contacted an experimental collaborator with the participant's preferred brand of cigarettes and the participant's gender. The collaborator then used random number generator software, along with a preassigned code, to allocate the participant to the branded or plain cigarette pack condition. A pack of the assigned cigarettes was then placed into a concealed envelope labelled with the participant's anonymised identification number. " Comment: Random component included Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "The lead researcher was blind to the condition assigned to participants until the participant returned on the final test day.
To perform the randomisation, the lead researcher, who enrolled participants, contacted an experimental collaborator with the participant's preferred brand of cigarettes and the participant's gender. The collaborator then used random number generator software, along with a preassigned code, to allocate the participant to the branded or plain cigarette pack condition. A pack of the assigned cigarettes was then placed into a concealed envelope labelled with the participant's anonymised identification number. " Comment: The allocation sequence was concealed from the lead researcher who was involved in the enrolment and assignment of participants.
Response options were Pack 1 (flip-top), Pack 2 (slide pack), Pack 3 (superslims pack), none of them, and don't know (see Figure  2 ) Analysis summary: Descriptive data were examined and items, originally measured on a 5-point scale, were dichotomised to show the proportion of young people responding to each item. Chi 2 analyses tested differences in responses by ever-smokers compared with never-smokers and non-susceptible never-smokers compared with susceptible neversmokers , feelings about smoking (satisfying, enjoyable, feeling good). For health warnings: noticing, believability, seriousness, read more closely, thought about more. All measured on 5-point scales. Composite scores were derived for categories of responses (such as pack perceptions, response to warnings), by summing the individual items and then rescaling to a 5-point scale Analysis summary: Paired t-tests were used to test for differences in mean reported daily consumption while using the Kerrods pack versus their own pack.
As the data on avoidant/cessation behaviours were binary (yes/no) the McNemar test was used to test for differences in response to the Kerrods pack versus their own pack. The number of avoidant/cessation behaviours associated with each pack was also counted and paired t-tests were used to test for differences in the mean number of actions taken with the Kerrods pack versus their own pack. Analysis focused on comparing ratings between branded and plain packs at different time points. For each time point, paired t-tests were used to produce mean scores for the plain packs relative to mean scores for their own packs. Wilcoxon signed rank test, a non-parametric procedure suited to paired data, was used to test for significant differences between the ratings of plain packs versus the ratings of the participant's own packs at each measure.
Outcomes [Secondary non-behavioural]: Value Analysis summary: Field auctions. Data collected using Becker-DeGroot-Marschak auction mechanism -each participant given opportunity to examine product and asked to place bid on product reflecting how much they would be willing to pay. Participants chose which of the 3 brands they conducted the auction with. The goal was to estimate Rousu 2013  (Continued)  the percentage of US smokers that will decrease their demand for cigarette packs with pictorial labels and with standardised packaging relative to text-only warnings, as well as to determine the factors that influence decreased demand. Both unconditional and conditional models were estimated to determine how smokers from different demographic groups and with different smoking-related characteristics may be affected differently by labelling alternatives.
Bias Wakefield 2013 (Continued) Funding source "This study was funded by Quit Victoria. The researchers declare that they are independent from the funder. The funder had no influence on the overall study design or on the decision to submit the paper for publication. " Conflicts of interest "LH and SD had financial support from Quit Victoria for the submitted work. " Respondents were recruited using a dual-frame sample design, with half of all respondents approached via landline random-digit dialling (RDD) and half by mobile phone RDD.
Smokers were also asked to rate their current cigarettes or tobacco as 'higher', 'lower' or 'about the same' compared with a year ago, in terms of quality, satisfaction, value for money and appeal of the packaging (coded as lower than a year ago vs higher/about the same). Additionally, smokers were asked whether or not there were differences between brands in prestige (no vs yes/do not know) and on a 4point scale from 'not at all different' to 'very different', how different cigarette brands were in taste (not at all different vs a little/somewhat/very different/do not know) Analysis summary: All adjusted models included HSI, demographic characteristics, recent antismoking campaign activity and change in cigarette price as covariates. Data were weighted to account for telephony status (landline or mobile phone), gender, age by education and state of residence (see Supplementary Technical report).
Logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of the experimental conditions for single packages on the 4 brand attributes, and to examine the extent to which participants selected a pack (branded or plain) in the pack selection task. Linear regression models were used to examine the effect of the experimental conditions on each of the 4 brand attribute and 6 smoker image index variables, including the overall "positive smoker image index"  (3) 'sometimes'; (4) 'often' and (5) 'every time I see them. ' In addition, students indicated how frequently they had not had a cigarette because of the warnings. Students who had smoked in the previous 12 months were asked how frequently they thought about quitting smoking because of the warnings. Perceptions of the health consequences of smoking: In both surveys, students were presented with the same list of 18 items and asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that they were caused by smoking, using a 5-point Likert scale Analysis summary: Data from students who had seen a cigarette pack in the previous 6 months were used.
To correct for any oversampling or undersampling of students within age, sex and education sector groups, data were weighted to reflect the number of male and female students of each age enrolled in each education section in each state in each survey year. Analyses adjusted for clustering of students within schools and robust SEs were used. Generalised linear regression models tested the change in scores across survey years for brand character ratings and positive and negative pack image ratings. Multinomial logistic regression examined change in the distribution of responses for the 3-level categorical variables assessing brand differences. Smoking status, age, sex, school education sector and state were included as covariates in analyses examining effect of year. When the effect of year was significant, its interaction with smoking status was fitted to determine if the effect was consistent across smoking status groups.
To examine whether the pre-post changes differed by AO patterns, difference scores were employed as outcomes and linear regression analyses conducted (since the difference scores were generally normally distributed) to test for group differences in outcomes by regressing the difference scores onto a dummy variable used to represent the 4 different patterns of change across waves in AO towards the HWLs (i. e. brand-brand; brand-warning; warning-brand and warning-warning). For ease of interpretation, a relevant subgroup was chosen as the reference group for comparison purposes. This set of analyses included only smokers who provided data on both survey waves. To assess effects of attrition, baseline differences were examined in covariates between those retained and lost and found those lost to the study were more likely to be highly educated, complete a phone survey and be recruited into the study in the year before the baseline wave.
Standardised (plain) = 75% front-of-pack warnings and 90% back-of-pack warnings. Set of 14 HW: Dark brown-green colour (Pantone 448C), with the brand name in the same typeface (Lucida Sans) and font size and colour (Pantone Cool Gray 2C). New set of 14 warnings divided into 2 sets to be rotated after 12 months (so 7 new warnings during the post-phase of this study) Outcomes [Secondary behavioural): At each café strip venue, fieldworkers recorded observations using notepads/smartphone data collection applications, including: (1) number of people smoking or holding/rolling/lighting a cigarette. Package display was recorded slightly differently in each phase Pre-standardised packaging , fieldworkers noted: (2) number of packages visible on the table; (3) number of packages orientated (a) face-down; (b) standing on their side, top or bottom; (c) in a case or tin (not the original packaging); (d) completely concealed by a telephone, wallet or some other object, so that the fieldworker was unable to ascertain its orientation; (e) with an unknown orientation (i.
Interactions between phase and covariates were also examined. A sensitivity analysis was then conducted, limiting the sample to venues which were open for business in both the pre-and post-PP phases. 267 ), at each venue, fieldworkers recorded observations using notepads/smartphone data collection applications, including counting: the number of seated patrons, patrons smoking, holding or lighting a cigarette ('active smokers'), and tobacco packs, noting the pack type in the post-standardised packaging phases (branded, standardised or unknown). They also recorded whether children were present, how many packs were oriented face-up with the brand name and variant visible, face-down, standing or on their side or concealed by an object like a wallet or phone (by pack type), and how many packs were in an unknown orientation due to distance or an external case (not recorded by pack type) Analysis summary: Data from the 5 waves in each of the 3 phases that were conducted between January and April.
Adkison 2014(Continued)models were adjusted for sex and race/ethnicity (White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, other non-Hispanic), and tobacco use status Funding source "Data collection for this study was funded by the NCI-funded Roswell Park TTURC, P50 CA111236 (PI Cummings). The preparation of this article has been supported by Federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. HHSN271201100027C. The views and opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors only and do not necessarily represent the views, official policy or position of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services or any of its affiliated institutions or agencies.
The participant went to the table, although we did have big signs by the table asking people if they would like to participate, and the interviewers did talk to people as they read the sign and walked by. " Australian adult (aged 18 -29) ever-smokers (smokers and recent quitters). The survey was conducted on the internet by a registered market research company (the Social Research Centre). Respondents were drawn from a national panel of previously identified smokers from the company's database. Participating respondents were awarded credits as part of a redemption scheme devised by the market research company.
Doxey 2011(Continued)the experimental condition variable was included in the model. In step 2, the following variables were entered as covariates: age, education, income, self-esteem, smoking status and weight concerns. Self-esteem was included in models predicting brand ratings and smoker traits. Unless indicated otherwise, results are from the 'adjusted' models in step 2 with all covariates present Funding source "Financial support for this project was provided by an Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Ashley Studentship for Research in Tobacco Control, a Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategic Training Program in Tobacco Research Fellowship, a Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative Student Research Grant, and the Propel Centre for Population Health Impact with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society.
html (accessed K, et al. Plain Tobacco Packaging: A Systematic Review. Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Angus K, Hinds Moodie 2012c Processes 1996;65:272-92. behaviours. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. [DOI: 10. 1002/14651858. CD003439. pub2] Lovato 2011 and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking Lovato C, Watts A, Stead LF. Impact of tobacco advertising References EPOC 2013 Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). MRC 2011 Medical Research Council (MRC). Using Natural Experiments to Evaluate Population Health Interventions: Guidance for Producers and Users of Evidence. Australian Government 2016 Wakefield 2002 IARC 2008 Australian Government Department of Health. Introduction Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK, Cummings KM. The IARC. Measuring Tobacco Use Behaviour.
to other published versions of this review McNeill 2016 McNeill A, Bauld L, Birken M, Hammond D, Moodie C, Stead M, et al. Tobacco packaging design for preventing tobacco uptake. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. [DOI: 10. 1002/ 14651858. CD011245. pub2] * Indicates the major publication for the study.
The participant went to the table, although we did have big signs by the table asking people if they would like to participate, and the interviewers did talk to people as they read the sign and walked by. " Australian adult (aged 18 -29) ever-smokers (smokers and recent quitters). The survey was conducted on the internet by a registered market research company (the Social Research Centre). Respondents were drawn from a national panel of previously identified smokers from the company's database. Participating respondents were awarded credits as part of a redemption scheme devised by the market research company Bansal-Travers 2011 (Continued) Borland 2013 (Continued) Selective reporting (reporting bias) Sampling Method Participants Unclear risk High risk 160 young 80 men (50%) 80% (129) smokers; 32 (20%) non-smokers; 33 ex-smokers (20.
Within-participants: pack design. Between- participants: brand and health warning. Two substudies were conducted with different Risk of bias pack designs: pack shapes and pack openings Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Regression models were conducted to test if the adjusted models differed from what is presented; Funding source "This study was funded by a Developmental Research Grant from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, NCI grant P50 CA 111236, as well as supported in part by P01 CA138389 (Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo NY), funded by the U. S. National Cancer Institute. " Conflicts of interest "KMC has served in the past and continues to serve as a paid expert witness for plaintiffs in litigation against the tobacco industry.
Randomised (af-confounders in the design of their study ter assessing smoking status) to view 8 cigarette packs designed according to 1 of 4 exper-the analysis in the paper showing that it is scale Analysis summary: A lab experiment with a 2 (label: existing versus plain packaging format) Low risk Low risk Quote: "For each of 156 months from Jan-highly likely the data were correctly extracted. imental conditions: fully-branded female brands; the same brands without descriptors Comment: Appropriate uary 2001 to December 2013 we estimated (eg, 'slims'); the same brands without brand imagery or descriptors (i. e. 'standardised' Still, there are limitations because there was × 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs unfamiliar brand) factorial design. During their normal the percentage of smokers and size of the packs); and fully branded non-female brands as a control condition little information in the Kaul and Wolf paper lectures, students in the different treatment cells were first presented with pictures showing different cigarette-pack labelling designs, and then instructed to complete a questionnaire sample from the published figures and recon-on how the data were extracted from the Roy structed the number of smokers and non-Morgan Reseach Database in the first place 512 women aged 18 -25 in Canada, smokers and non-smokers measuring their smoking intent and the brand's likability.
(2009a, b), but required significant adaptation in ac-cordance with the results of a focus group due to the very different context of our experi-ment. " Comment: The questions were based on pre-wards the null, leading to an underestimate contain multiple measures, not just smok-For each month the percentage of smokers and size of the sample from the published figures of the impact. It should also be noted that ing-focused. 'Computer Assisted Interviews' were estimated and the number of smokers and non-smokers in each sample was recon-the way the data were extracted from the Roy were used to collect the data. Ths survey ran structed. Additional data were provided by authors upon request. This paper investigated Morgan database and aggregated over month for approximately 1 year after full implemen-the findings of an unpublished industry-funded paper (Kaul 2014).
Risk of bias Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Doxey 2011(Continued)the experimental condition variable was included in the model. In step 2, the following variables were entered as covariates: age, education, income, self-esteem, smoking status and weight concerns. Self-esteem was included in models predicting brand ratings and smoker traits. Unless indicated otherwise, results are from the 'adjusted' models in step 2 with all covariates present Funding source "Financial support for this project was provided by an Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Ashley Studentship for Research in Tobacco Control, a Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategic Training Program in Tobacco Research Fellowship, a Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative Student Research Grant, and the Propel Centre for Population Health Impact with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society.
75% pictorial HW on both sides Outcomes [Secondary non=behavioural]: Baseline (branded RYO packs) and follow-up (standardised RYO packs) questionnaires assessing measures: 1. Packaging appeal: • Brand attachment: 5 items were aggregated in 1 component and mean used • Brand attitude (liking brand) • Pack perceptions (desirability, attractiveness, style, fashion and coolness) Standardised (plain) = "Identical" to Australian packs [Drab brown with text in grey]. HWs were 75% of the front and back of the surface Participants 1087 14-to 17-year-olds -smokers and non-smokers Panel members were originally sourced from various methods including computer-assisted telephone interviews and face-to-face and online market research databases. Panel members were contacted by e-mail and asked whether they were willing to allow their child to complete an online survey about cigarette packaging being conducted by The.
2 of the most popular brand variants in the Australian mainstream: branded Winfield blue and branded premium Benson and Hedges Smooth 25 Standardised (plain) = Australian: dark brown-green colour (Pantone 448C), with the brand name in the same typeface (Lucida Sans) and font size and colour (Pantone Cool Gray 2C) All pack conditions featured the same graphic image and text HW: 'smoking causes peripheral vascular disease' that first appeared on Australian cigarette packs in 2006. These were pre-and post-real packages in Australia -so 30% front-of-pack warnings increased to 75% of the pack face, and 90% back-of-pack warnings remained Germain 2010 (Continued) Germain 2010 (Continued) Goldberg 1999 (Continued) Guillaumier 2014 (Continued) Statistical methods Interventions nally sourced from various methods includ-ing computer-assisted telephone interviews and faceto-Comment: Appropriate within the next year" IV: The 4 pack conditions were: (1) branded Winfield Blue 25; (2) standardised Winfield Low risk Comment: very few details given; conve-nience sample Blue 25; (3) branded B&H Smooth 25 and (4) Goldberg 1999 Measurement of independent variable Low risk face and online market research databases.
Mays 2015 (Continued) Miller 2015 (Continued) Miller 2015 (Continued) Moodie 2011 (Continued) Moodie 2012 (Continued) source Risk of bias Notes Bias Selective reporting (reporting bias) Sampling Method Measurement of independent variable Measurement of dependent variable Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Interventions Measurement of independent variable Outcomes Outcomes Measurement of independent variable Control for confounding Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Control for confounding Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Statistical methods Miller 2015 Methods Participants Interventions Risk of bias Bias Selective reporting (reporting bias) Sampling Method Control for confounding Methods Participants Interventions Sampling Method Participants Selective reporting (reporting bias) Methods Moodie 2012 Statistical methods Notes Funding source Conflicts of interest "Notes "This research was supported by an individual allocation to Darren Mays from the American Cancer Society Institutional Research Grant to Georgetown Lombardi Com-prehensive Cancer Center (Grant # IRG-97-152-17).