BACKGROUND: The European Commission requires tobacco products sold in the European Union to display standardized text health warnings. This article examines the effectiveness of the text health warnings among daily cigarette smokers in four Member States. METHODS: Data were drawn from nationally representative samples of smokers from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project surveys in France (2007), Germany (2007), the Netherlands (2008) and the UK (2006). We examined: (i) smokers' ratings of the health warnings on warning salience, thoughts of harm and quitting and forgoing of cigarettes; (ii) impact of the warnings using a Labels Impact Index (LII), with higher scores signifying greater impact; and (iii) differences on the LII by demographic characteristics and smoking behaviour. RESULTS: Scores on the LII differed significantly across countries. Scores were highest in France, lower in the UK, and lowest in Germany and the Netherlands. Across all countries, scores were significantly higher among low-income smokers, smokers who had made a quit attempt in the past year and smokers who smoked fewer cigarettes per day. CONCLUSION: The impact of the health warnings varies greatly across countries. Impact tended to be highest in countries with more comprehensive tobacco control programmes. Because the impact of the warnings was highest among smokers with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), this research suggests that health warnings could be more effective among smokers from lower SES groups. Differences in warning label impact by SES should be further investigated.
BACKGROUND: The European Commission requires tobacco products sold in the European Union to display standardized text health warnings. This article examines the effectiveness of the text health warnings among daily cigarette smokers in four Member States. METHODS: Data were drawn from nationally representative samples of smokers from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project surveys in France (2007), Germany (2007), the Netherlands (2008) and the UK (2006). We examined: (i) smokers' ratings of the health warnings on warning salience, thoughts of harm and quitting and forgoing of cigarettes; (ii) impact of the warnings using a Labels Impact Index (LII), with higher scores signifying greater impact; and (iii) differences on the LII by demographic characteristics and smoking behaviour. RESULTS: Scores on the LII differed significantly across countries. Scores were highest in France, lower in the UK, and lowest in Germany and the Netherlands. Across all countries, scores were significantly higher among low-income smokers, smokers who had made a quit attempt in the past year and smokers who smoked fewer cigarettes per day. CONCLUSION: The impact of the health warnings varies greatly across countries. Impact tended to be highest in countries with more comprehensive tobacco control programmes. Because the impact of the warnings was highest among smokers with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), this research suggests that health warnings could be more effective among smokers from lower SES groups. Differences in warning label impact by SES should be further investigated.
Authors: R Borland; N Wilson; G T Fong; D Hammond; K M Cummings; H-H Yong; W Hosking; G Hastings; J Thrasher; A McNeill Journal: Tob Control Date: 2009-06-28 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: A E Cavelaars; A E Kunst; J J Geurts; R Crialesi; L Grötvedt; U Helmert; E Lahelma; O Lundberg; J Matheson; A Mielck; N K Rasmussen; E Regidor; M do Rosário-Giraldes; T Spuhler; J P Mackenbach Journal: BMJ Date: 2000-04-22
Authors: Johan P Mackenbach; Martijn Huisman; Otto Andersen; Matthias Bopp; Jens-Kristian Borgan; Carme Borrell; Giuseppe Costa; Patrick Deboosere; Angela Donkin; Sylvie Gadeyne; Christoph Minder; Enrique Regidor; Teresa Spadea; Tapani Valkonen; Anton E Kunst Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Gera E Nagelhout; Marc C Willemsen; Mary E Thompson; Geoffrey T Fong; Bas van den Putte; Hein de Vries Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kamala Swayampakala; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; Gera E Nagelhout; Lin Li; Ron Borland; David Hammond; Richard J O'Connor; James W Hardin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Máirtín S McDermott; Grace Li; Ann McNeill; David Hammond; James F Thrasher; Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Sara C Hitchman Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Sara C Hitchman; Pete Driezen; Christine Logel; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Marissa Palmer; Jennifer W Tidey; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Maria R Cooper; Nicolle M Krebs; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Joy L Hart; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Els Rennen; Gera E Nagelhout; Bas van den Putte; Eva Janssen; Ute Mons; Romain Guignard; François Beck; Hein de Vries; James F Thrasher; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2013-07-16
Authors: Gera E Nagelhout; Marc C Willemsen; Hein de Vries; Ute Mons; Sara C Hitchman; Anton E Kunst; Romain Guignard; Mohammad Siahpush; Hua-Hie Yong; Bas van den Putte; Geoffrey T Fong; James F Thrasher Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Anh Ngo; Kai-Wen Cheng; Ce Shang; Jidong Huang; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Karin Hummel; Gera E Nagelhout; Marc C Willemsen; Pete Driezen; Linda Springvloet; Ute Mons; Anton E Kunst; Romain Guignard; Shane Allwright; Bas van den Putte; Ciska Hoving; Geoffrey T Fong; Ann McNeill; Mohammad Siahpush; Hein de Vries Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 4.492