Amira Osman1, James F Thrasher1, Ebru Cayir1, James W Hardin2, Rosaura Perez-Hernandez3, Brett Froeliger4. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. 3. National Institute of Public Health, Department of Tobacco Research, Population Health Research Center. 4. Department of Neuroscience, Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examine whether having depressive symptoms (DS) is associated with different responses to cigarette package health warning labels (HWLs) before and after the implementation of pictorial HWLs in Mexico. METHOD: We analyze data from adult smokers from Wave 4 and Wave 5 (n = 1,340) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project in Mexico. Seven Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) items assessed DS, with scores ≥7 indicating elevated DS. Outcomes included: attention to HWLs, cognitive responses to HWLs, tobacco constituents awareness, putting off smoking due to HWLs, avoidance of HWLs, and awareness of telephone support for cessation (i.e., quitlines). Mixed effects models were used to assess main and interactive effects of DS and time (i.e., survey wave) on each outcome. RESULTS: All HWL responses increased over time, except putting off smoking. Statistically significant interactions were found between DS and time for models of tobacco constituents awareness (b = -0.36, SE = 0.15, p = .022), putting off smoking (OR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.25, 0.66]), avoidance of HWLs (OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.03, 3.29]), and quitline awareness (OR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.21, 0.56]). Compared to smokers with low DS, smokers with elevated DS reported stronger HWL responses at baseline; however, HWL responses increased over time among smokers with low DS, whereas HWL responses showed little or no change among smokers with elevated DS. DISCUSSION: Population-level increases in HWL responses after pictorial HWLs were introduced in Mexico appeared mostly limited to smokers with low DS. In general, however, smokers with elevated DS reported equivalent or stronger HWL responses than smokers with low DS. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: We examine whether having depressive symptoms (DS) is associated with different responses to cigarette package health warning labels (HWLs) before and after the implementation of pictorial HWLs in Mexico. METHOD: We analyze data from adult smokers from Wave 4 and Wave 5 (n = 1,340) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project in Mexico. Seven Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) items assessed DS, with scores ≥7 indicating elevated DS. Outcomes included: attention to HWLs, cognitive responses to HWLs, tobacco constituents awareness, putting off smoking due to HWLs, avoidance of HWLs, and awareness of telephone support for cessation (i.e., quitlines). Mixed effects models were used to assess main and interactive effects of DS and time (i.e., survey wave) on each outcome. RESULTS: All HWL responses increased over time, except putting off smoking. Statistically significant interactions were found between DS and time for models of tobacco constituents awareness (b = -0.36, SE = 0.15, p = .022), putting off smoking (OR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.25, 0.66]), avoidance of HWLs (OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.03, 3.29]), and quitline awareness (OR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.21, 0.56]). Compared to smokers with low DS, smokers with elevated DS reported stronger HWL responses at baseline; however, HWL responses increased over time among smokers with low DS, whereas HWL responses showed little or no change among smokers with elevated DS. DISCUSSION: Population-level increases in HWL responses after pictorial HWLs were introduced in Mexico appeared mostly limited to smokers with low DS. In general, however, smokers with elevated DS reported equivalent or stronger HWL responses than smokers with low DS. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; Pete Driezen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kamala Swayampakala; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Hua-Hie Yong; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Dean Krugman; Abraham Brown; Ron Borland; James Hardin Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2014-05-21
Authors: Koen Demyttenaere; Ronny Bruffaerts; Jose Posada-Villa; Isabelle Gasquet; Viviane Kovess; Jean Pierre Lepine; Matthias C Angermeyer; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Pierluigi Morosini; Gabriella Polidori; Takehiko Kikkawa; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Ono; Tadashi Takeshima; Hidenori Uda; Elie G Karam; John A Fayyad; Aimee N Karam; Zeina N Mneimneh; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Guilherme Borges; Carmen Lara; Ron de Graaf; Johan Ormel; Oye Gureje; Yucun Shen; Yueqin Huang; Mingyuan Zhang; Jordi Alonso; Josep Maria Haro; Gemma Vilagut; Evelyn J Bromet; Semyon Gluzman; Charles Webb; Ronald C Kessler; Kathleen R Merikangas; James C Anthony; Michael R Von Korff; Philip S Wang; Traolach S Brugha; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sing Lee; Steven Heeringa; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Alan M Zaslavsky; T Bedirhan Ustun; Somnath Chatterji Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roger D Newman-Norlund; James F Thrasher; Johann Fridriksson; William Brixius; Brett Froeliger; David Hammond; Michael K Cummings Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katherine Sawyer; Chloe Burke; Ronnie Long Yee Ng; Tom P Freeman; Sally Adams; Gemma Taylor Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 5.435
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