Carton cigarettes how many packs

Lee, I. Cigarette pack size and consumption: an adaptive randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 21, Download citation. Received : 30 October Accepted : 29 June Published : 18 July Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Morris 4 , Mark A. Pilling 1 , Gareth J. Hollands 1 , Melanie Wakefield 3 , Marcus R.

Abstract Background Observational evidence suggests that cigarette pack size — the number of cigarettes in a single pack — is associated with consumption but experimental evidence of a causal relationship is lacking. Results The interim analysis, conducted when participants had been randomised, suggested additional participants needed to be randomised for sufficient power to detect a meaningful effect.

Background Despite progress in global tobacco control [ 1 ], smoking remains one of the largest risk factors for disease globally [ 2 ] and a major cause of the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest [ 3 ].

Methods Design This was a two-stage adaptive parallel group RCT with a planned sample size re-estimation conducted at an interim stage of data collection, also known as an internal pilot design.

Intervention Participants were randomised to one of two study arms. Setting The study took place in Australia, nationwide; data were collected via telephone and post.

Sample size An initial sample size calculation used the estimate of the within-arm SD of cigarettes per day from a pilot study 5.

Randomisation A simple randomisation sequence was generated by a senior statistician RM not involved with recruitment or data collection.

Measures Primary outcome The average number of cigarettes smoked per day. Secondary outcomes Heaviness of smoking, motivation to stop smoking and autonomy over smoking were measured at the end of the study, via a telephone survey, using the following scales: i.

Baseline measures Age and gender were recorded at recruitment. Materials Cigarette pack labels A set of white, green and red adhesive labels 5. Instruction packs Printed instructions were posted to participants along with a set of labels, return slips and four pre-paid return envelopes for participants to post their finished cigarette packs at the end of each week.

Procedure The study was presented to participants as investigating how cigarette pack size affects the perception of health warnings to avoid participants focusing on their smoking in relation to pack size. Data analysis Sample size re-estimation All analyses were conducted by a senior statistician MP and analyst KDL who were not involved in data collection and were blinded to allocation. The remainder of the analyses were conducted in SPSS Sample characteristics Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic and smoking characteristics of participants in each study arm.

Primary outcome A full analysis of all outcome variables was conducted. Secondary outcomes Differences between study arms in the means of the secondary outcomes were estimated using ANCOVA where adjustment was made for the same measures taken at recruitment. Results Sample characteristics Of the smokers meeting the eligibility criteria, Full size image.

Strengths and limitations The use of an adaptive design was a strength of the study; ensuring optimal use of resources given a lack of existing experimental evidence regarding an estimate of the effect and an uncertain estimate of the standard deviation of the primary outcome [ 18 ]. Implications for research and policy Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the true effect of capping cigarette pack sizes at 20 in jurisdictions where this is currently the minimum pack size i.

Conclusion It remains unclear whether capping cigarette pack sizes at 20 in jurisdictions where this is currently the minimum pack size reduces cigarette consumption. Notes 1. References 1. Article Google Scholar 3. Article PubMed Google Scholar 5.

Article PubMed Google Scholar 7. Google Scholar 8. Google Scholar 9. Article Google Scholar Article PubMed Google Scholar Book Google Scholar Google Scholar Book Google Scholar Download references. Morris Authors Ilse Lee View author publications. View author publications. Consent for publication Not Applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information. Additional file 1. Cigarette pack size and consumption: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Additional file 2. Missing data and inconsistent responses. Missing data and inconsistent responses Aged 18 and over. Smoke only factory-made cigarettes. Smoke 5 or more cigarettes a day on every day of the week. Smoked at least cigarettes in his or her lifetime. Routinely purchase cigarettes in packs of 25 or more. Live anywhere in Australia.

Able to read and write sufficient English to complete all study procedures. Willing to collect and post one week of receipts of cigarettes purchased at baseline. Willing to record on each cigarette pack dates when the pack was opened and when finished. Willing to undergo a telephone interview at the end of the study.

Exclusion criteria i. Pregnant women. Intend to quit smoking in the next three months. Used e-cigarettes weekly over the past month, and intend to continue.

However, depending on the sales requirement distribution sizes of 5 packs of 20s and 20 packs of 20s are also common. Once the individual 20s or 10s pack has been wrapped, it can be collated and wrapped in clear film, collated and wrapped in printed film, collated and wrapped in paper or collated and boxed.

After boxing, the pack is typically overwrapped. The most typical format for secondary packaging is the s collation — 2 packs high by 5 packs wide. If protection is less important and the s collation will be unwrapped at the retailer, then clear polypropylene wrapping film is an economic method of forming the collation.

If it is unsure as to whether the collation is for direct sale or splitting down by the retailer, the use of either printed film or printed paper wrapping provides an economic method of packaging which is suitable for most sales channels.

These facsimile packs offer an attractive display face suitable for advertising or promotional purposes. A development of recent years, driven by taxation both high and low, has been the development of retail multipacks containing 40, 60, 80 or cigarettes and at the other end of the scale duty-free packs containing , , , and as many as cigarettes.

The 40s pack is generally two 20s packs wrapped together using a dissimilar polypropylene film to stop it from heat sealing to the primary wrap. The 40s pack offers the consumer the promise of savings from a price point and the convenience of several days supply in one purchase.

The large multipacks, however, are film wrapped or boxed multiples of s packs which take advantage of differing taxation regimes, particularly in the European Union, allowing the traveller to purchase tax paid cigarettes for personal consumption in the country of embarkation. List of Partners vendors. As of Dec. One pack-year equals 20 manufactured cigarettes smoked per day for one year.

Here are a few examples of how pack-years are determined. For the purposes of the calculation, one pack contains 20 cigarettes. The pack-year calculation uses standard manufactured cigarettes.

But what if you use loose tobacco to roll your own cigarettes or fill a pipe? The pack-year formula can't be applied to people who smoke using loose tobacco.

Instead, a translation can be derived by measuring the weight of tobacco in traditional cigarettes and relating it to loose tobacco. Even though there are some differences between the cigarettes you roll yourself with loose tobacco and manufactured cigarettes you buy in a pack, the American Cancer Society reminds consumers that there are health consequences to any type of cigarette you smoke. So why is knowing a person's pack-year calculation helpful?

Here we take a look at how pack-years could be useful and the debate surrounding the accuracy of how the calculation is used. Pack-years is one measure of lung cancer risk for people who smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC , a person's pack-years, age, and smoking history are used to determine whether screening for lung cancer is recommended. However, there is some debate about the accuracy and usefulness of using pack-years as a risk assessment for lung cancer.

For example, you might assume that a person who has smoked half a pack of cigarettes every day for 40 years 20 pack-years is at greater risk for lung cancer than someone who has been smoking two packs a day for 10 years also 20 pack-years. The assertion assumes that less smoking-related health damage occurs within the first 10 years a person smokes compared to the level of damage sustained after 40 years.

However, research has shown that even occasional smoking has health consequences. While it's not a perfect measure of risk, many researchers and clinicians feel that pack-years provide an important perspective on lifetime risk for people who smoke. In addition to lung cancer, a person's pack-year calculation is one of several factors considered when assessing a person's risk of smoking-related cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD.

However, studies have suggested that other factors such as smoking duration or intensity, rather than just pack-years, may be important to consider when it comes to risk for heart disease and COPD. While measuring pack-years is comparative in nature, it's important to note that the calculation shouldn't be used to justify a smoking habit e.

Even someone who smokes less or whose pack-year calculation is smaller than another person's can experience serious health issues related to smoking. Part of the reason this is decreasing is the growing popularity of vapes and e-cigarettes, which have replaced cigarettes for many people. However, with that said, there are still 38 million Americans who smoke cigarettes. Yes, there are hard packs and soft packs.

The most common type is hard packs, which are the typical cardboard packs you will find at a convenience store. However, they break and damage easily, which is a major downside. From a financial standpoint, they cost exactly the same. The only reason one might cost more than another is because of brand pricing or tobacco tax, which varies from state to state.

Rolling your own cigarettes is fairly simple; it just requires a bit of practice. It can actually be more cost-effective, depending on the materials you buy and how often you actually smoke.

Typically, though, rolling your own is much cheaper, especially with the high taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products purchased in a store. To put it into perspective, the average pack of rolling papers comes with 50 papers and costs less than one pack of cigarettes.

People also enjoy rolling their own cigarettes because they can customize the cigarette with the size, type of tobacco, and type of paper used. Also, some people find it relaxing and will roll a few at a time to have on hand.