The effect of standardised packaging and limited flavour descriptors of vape pods among adults and youth in Great Britain: a cross-sectional between-subjects experimental study.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40989559.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101442 and PMC identifier 12451370.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Vape packaging often includes colourful designs and conceptual flavour names, which appeal to youth. We examined the impact of standardised vape packaging and flavour names on appeal to youth and adults. This cross-sectional (between-subjects) experimental study used data from the 2024 Action on Smoking and Health Youth (n = 2,770, aged 11-18), and a 2024 Prolific Academic (n = 3,947, aged 18+), surveys. Participants were randomised to one condition from: (1) branded packs (control), (2) standardised white with usual descriptors (e.g., blu razz) (3) standardised white with limited flavour descriptors (e.g., blueberry and raspberry), and among adults only (4) standardised white with coded flavour descriptors (e.g., FR248). Youth reported perceived peer interest in trying the products, adults reported their own interest and perceived harm relative to cigarettes. Logistic regression examined associations between packaging and interest or harm perceptions, adjusting for demographics. Differences between packaging types were small in percentage terms, but some reached significance. Youth reported higher odds of no perceived peer interest in trying vapes in standardised packs (31.5% (n = 292/927); aOR = 1.85 [95%CI = 1.47-2.32], p < 0.001), and standardised packs with limited flavour descriptors (27.2% (n = 252/927); 1.50 [1.19-1.90], p < 0.001), vs. branded packs (24.0% (220/916)). Adults reported higher odds of no interest in trying standardised packs with coded flavour descriptors (76.2% (776/1019); 1.52 [1.18-1.97], p < 0.001), but not usual (75.4% (n = 713/946); 1.28 [0.99-1.65], p = 0.063) or limited (70.1% (n = 657/937); 0.90 [0.70-1.15], p = 0.392) flavour descriptors, compared to branded (71.5% (n = 693/969)). Packaging condition did not have a significant effect on relative harm perceptions among adults. Standardised packaging and limiting flavour descriptors reduced youth appeal but had minimal effect on adults' interest or harm perception. Research England.