Gera E Nagelhout1, Amira Osman2, Hua-Hie Yong3, Li-Ling Huang4, Ron Borland3, James F Thrasher5. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands; Dutch Alliance for a Smokefree Society, The Hague, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Gera.Nagelhout@MaastrichtUniversity.nl. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behaviour, University of SC, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. Nigel Gray Fellowship Group, Cancer Council Victoria, St Kilda, Victoria, Australia. 4. Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communication, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of NC, Chapel Hill, USA. 5. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behaviour, University of SC, Columbia, SC, USA; Department of Tobacco Research, Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-level interventions can possibly enhance each other's effects when they are implemented simultaneously. When the plain packaging policy was implemented in Australia, pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packages were also updated and a national mass media campaign was aired. This study examined whether smokers who recalled the media campaign reported more attention to and talking about HWLs. METHODS: Longitudinal survey data was obtained among Australian adult smokers, aged 18 years and older, from an online consumer panel. One survey wave was conducted before (September 2012) and two waves were conducted after (January 2013 and May 2013) the interventions. The sample was replenished to maintain a sample size of 1000 participants at each wave. Generalized Estimating Equations analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared to wave 1, attention to HWLs increased at wave 2 (b=0.32, SE=0.06, p<0.001), but not at wave 3 (b=0.10, SE=0.08, p=0.198). Talking about HWLs increased over time (IRR=1.82, 95% CI=1.58-2.09 and IRR=1.25, 95% CI=1.05-1.47, at wave 2 and wave 3 respectively). Campaign recall was significantly associated with more attention to HWLs (b=0.29, SE=0.05, p<0.001) and with more talking about HWLs (IRR=1.17, 95% CI=1.06-1.29) with similar effects across waves 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Recall of the campaign was associated with more attention to and talking about HWLs. When adjusting for campaign recall, there was still an increasing trend in attention and talking. This suggests that the media campaign and the new packaging and labeling policies had independent and positive effects on attention to and talking about HWLs.
BACKGROUND: Population-level interventions can possibly enhance each other's effects when they are implemented simultaneously. When the plain packaging policy was implemented in Australia, pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packages were also updated and a national mass media campaign was aired. This study examined whether smokers who recalled the media campaign reported more attention to and talking about HWLs. METHODS: Longitudinal survey data was obtained among Australian adult smokers, aged 18 years and older, from an online consumer panel. One survey wave was conducted before (September 2012) and two waves were conducted after (January 2013 and May 2013) the interventions. The sample was replenished to maintain a sample size of 1000 participants at each wave. Generalized Estimating Equations analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared to wave 1, attention to HWLs increased at wave 2 (b=0.32, SE=0.06, p<0.001), but not at wave 3 (b=0.10, SE=0.08, p=0.198). Talking about HWLs increased over time (IRR=1.82, 95% CI=1.58-2.09 and IRR=1.25, 95% CI=1.05-1.47, at wave 2 and wave 3 respectively). Campaign recall was significantly associated with more attention to HWLs (b=0.29, SE=0.05, p<0.001) and with more talking about HWLs (IRR=1.17, 95% CI=1.06-1.29) with similar effects across waves 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Recall of the campaign was associated with more attention to and talking about HWLs. When adjusting for campaign recall, there was still an increasing trend in attention and talking. This suggests that the media campaign and the new packaging and labeling policies had independent and positive effects on attention to and talking about HWLs.
Authors: James F Thrasher; Nandita Murukutla; Rosaura Pérez-Hernández; Jorge Alday; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Claudia Cedillo; Juan Pablo Gutierrez Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: G T Fong; K M Cummings; R Borland; G Hastings; A Hyland; G A Giovino; D Hammond; M E Thompson Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Sarah Aleyan; Pete Driezen; Ann McNeill; Máirtín McDermott; Sarah Kahnert; Christina N Kyriakos; Ute Mons; Esteve Fernández; Antigona C Trofor; Mateusz Zatoński; Tibor Demjén; Paraskevi A Katsaounou; Krzysztof Przewoźniak; James Balmford; Filippos T Filippidis; Geoffrey T Fong; Constantine I Vardavas; Sara C Hitchman Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Jennifer C Morgan; Shelley D Golden; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Brian G Southwell; Michelle Jeong; Marissa G Hall; Noel T Brewer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Carla J Berg; Geoffrey T Fong; James F Thrasher; Joanna E Cohen; Wasim Maziak; Harry Lando; Jeffrey Drope; Raul Mejia; Joaquin Barnoya; Rima Nakkash; Ramzi G Salloum; Mark Parascandola Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Ann McNeill; Shannon Gravely; Sara C Hitchman; Linda Bauld; David Hammond; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-27
Authors: Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez; Farahnaz Islam; Yoo Jin Cho; Ramzi George Salloum; Jordan Louviere; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Joaquin Barnoya; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James Hardin; James F Thrasher Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 7.552