Li-Ling Huang1, James F Thrasher2, Jessica L Reid3, David Hammond4. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communication, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; huangl@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; Department of Tobacco Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico; 3. Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 4. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies examining cigarette package pictorial health warning label (HWL) content have primarily used designs that do not allow determination of effectiveness after repeated, naturalistic exposure. This research aimed to determine the predictive and external validity of a pre-market evaluation study of pictorial HWLs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from: (1) a pre-market convenience sample of 544 adult smokers who participated in field experiments in Mexico City before pictorial HWL implementation (September 2010); and (2) a post-market population-based representative sample of 1765 adult smokers in the Mexican administration of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey after pictorial HWL implementation. Participants in both samples rated six HWLs that appeared on cigarette packs, and also ranked HWLs with four different themes. Mixed effects models were estimated for each sample to assess ratings of relative effectiveness for the six HWLs, and to assess which HWL themes were ranked as the most effective. RESULTS: Pre- and post-market data showed similar relative ratings across the six HWLs, with the least and most effective HWLs consistently differentiated from other HWLs. Models predicting rankings of HWL themes in post-market sample indicated: (1) pictorial HWLs were ranked as more effective than text-only HWLs; (2) HWLs with both graphic and "lived experience" content outperformed symbolic content; and, (3) testimonial content significantly outperformed didactic content. Pre-market data showed a similar pattern of results, but with fewer statistically significant findings. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests well-designed pre-market studies can have predictive and external validity, helping regulators select HWL content.
INTRODUCTION: Studies examining cigarette package pictorial health warning label (HWL) content have primarily used designs that do not allow determination of effectiveness after repeated, naturalistic exposure. This research aimed to determine the predictive and external validity of a pre-market evaluation study of pictorial HWLs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from: (1) a pre-market convenience sample of 544 adult smokers who participated in field experiments in Mexico City before pictorial HWL implementation (September 2010); and (2) a post-market population-based representative sample of 1765 adult smokers in the Mexican administration of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey after pictorial HWL implementation. Participants in both samples rated six HWLs that appeared on cigarette packs, and also ranked HWLs with four different themes. Mixed effects models were estimated for each sample to assess ratings of relative effectiveness for the six HWLs, and to assess which HWL themes were ranked as the most effective. RESULTS: Pre- and post-market data showed similar relative ratings across the six HWLs, with the least and most effective HWLs consistently differentiated from other HWLs. Models predicting rankings of HWL themes in post-market sample indicated: (1) pictorial HWLs were ranked as more effective than text-only HWLs; (2) HWLs with both graphic and "lived experience" content outperformed symbolic content; and, (3) testimonial content significantly outperformed didactic content. Pre-market data showed a similar pattern of results, but with fewer statistically significant findings. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests well-designed pre-market studies can have predictive and external validity, helping regulators select HWL content.
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Melanie C Green; Joseph N Cappella; Michael D Slater; Meg E Wise; Doug Storey; Eddie M Clark; Daniel J O'Keefe; Deborah O Erwin; Kathleen Holmes; Leslie J Hinyard; Thomas Houston; Sabra Woolley Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-06
Authors: Silvia Elena Llaguno-Aguilar; Ana Del Carmen Dorantes-Alonso; James F Thrasher; Victor Villalobos; John C Besley Journal: Salud Publica Mex Date: 2008
Authors: David Hammond; James Thrasher; Jessica L Reid; Pete Driezen; Christian Boudreau; Edna Arillo Santillán Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: James F Thrasher; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Victor Villalobos; Rosaura Pérez-Hernández; David Hammond; Jarvis Carter; Ernesto Sebrié; Raul Sansores; Justino Regalado-Piñeda Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: David Hammond; Jessica L Reid; Pete Driezen; James F Thrasher; Prakash C Gupta; Nigar Nargis; Qiang Li; Jiang Yuan; Christian Boudreau; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Melissa Mercincavage; Jordan Burdge; Kirsten Lochbuehler; Valentina Souprountchouk; Alexandra A McCullough; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-11
Authors: James F Thrasher; Farahnaz Islam; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Rosibel Rodriguez-Bolaños; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James W Hardin; Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez Journal: Addiction Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: James F Thrasher; Dien Anshari; Victoria Lambert-Jessup; Farahnaz Islam; Erin Mead; Lucy Popova; Ramzi Salloum; Crawford Moodie; Jordan Louviere; Eric N Lindblom Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-03
Authors: James F Thrasher; Farahnaz Islam; Rachel E Davis; Lucy Popova; Victoria Lambert; Yoo Jin Cho; Ramzi G Salloum; Jordan Louviere; David Hammond Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390