James F Thrasher1, Kamala Swayampakala2, K Michael Cummings3, David Hammond4, Dien Anshari5, Dean M Krugman6, James W Hardin7. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA; Department of Tobacco Research, Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico. Electronic address: thrasher@sc.edu. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA. 3. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA. 4. School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. 5. Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA; Department of Health Education & Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia. 6. College of Journalism and Mass Communication, The University of Georgia, Athens, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In June 2012, Canada implemented new pictorial warnings on cigarette packages, along with package inserts with messages to promote response efficacy (i.e., perceived quitting benefits) and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence to quit). This study assessed smokers' attention toward warnings and inserts and its relationship with efficacy beliefs, risk perceptions and cessation at follow-up. METHODS: Data were analyzed in 2015 from a prospective online consumer panel of adult Canadian smokers surveyed every four months between September 2012 and September 2014. Generalized Estimating Equation models were estimated to assess associations between reading inserts, reading warnings and efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy, response efficacy), risk perceptions, quit attempts of any length, and sustained quit attempts (i.e., 30days or more) at follow-up. Models adjusted for socio-demographics, smoking-related variables, and time-in-sample effects. RESULTS: Over the study period, reading warnings significantly decreased (p<0.0001) while reading inserts increased (p=0.004). More frequent reading of warnings was associated independently with stronger response efficacy (Boften/very often vs never=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.46) and risk perceptions at follow-up (Boften/very often vs never=0.31, 95% CI: 0.06-0.56). More frequent reading of inserts was associated independently with stronger self-efficacy to quit at follow-up (Btwice or more vs none=0.30, 95% CI: 0.14-0.47), quit attempts (ORtwice or more vs none=1.68, 95% CI: 1.28-2.19), and sustained quit attempts (ORtwice or more vs none=1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: More frequent reading of inserts was associated with self-efficacy to quit, quit attempts, and sustained quitting at follow-up, suggesting that inserts complement pictorial HWLs.
BACKGROUND: In June 2012, Canada implemented new pictorial warnings on cigarette packages, along with package inserts with messages to promote response efficacy (i.e., perceived quitting benefits) and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence to quit). This study assessed smokers' attention toward warnings and inserts and its relationship with efficacy beliefs, risk perceptions and cessation at follow-up. METHODS: Data were analyzed in 2015 from a prospective online consumer panel of adult Canadian smokers surveyed every four months between September 2012 and September 2014. Generalized Estimating Equation models were estimated to assess associations between reading inserts, reading warnings and efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy, response efficacy), risk perceptions, quit attempts of any length, and sustained quit attempts (i.e., 30days or more) at follow-up. Models adjusted for socio-demographics, smoking-related variables, and time-in-sample effects. RESULTS: Over the study period, reading warnings significantly decreased (p<0.0001) while reading inserts increased (p=0.004). More frequent reading of warnings was associated independently with stronger response efficacy (Boften/very often vs never=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.46) and risk perceptions at follow-up (Boften/very often vs never=0.31, 95% CI: 0.06-0.56). More frequent reading of inserts was associated independently with stronger self-efficacy to quit at follow-up (Btwice or more vs none=0.30, 95% CI: 0.14-0.47), quit attempts (ORtwice or more vs none=1.68, 95% CI: 1.28-2.19), and sustained quit attempts (ORtwice or more vs none=1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: More frequent reading of inserts was associated with self-efficacy to quit, quit attempts, and sustained quitting at follow-up, suggesting that inserts complement pictorial HWLs.
Authors: Jeannette O Andrews; Gwen Felton; Mary Ellen Wewers; Jennifer Waller; Martha Tingen Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Erin L O'Hea; Edwin D Boudreaux; Shawn K Jeffries; Cindy L Carmack Taylor; Isabel C Scarinci; Phillip J Brantley Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2004 Nov-Dec
Authors: Benjamin A Toll; Alana M Rojewski; Lindsay R Duncan; Amy E Latimer-Cheung; Lisa M Fucito; Julie L Boyer; Stephanie S O'Malley; Peter Salovey; Roy S Herbst Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer A Ferguson; Christi A Patten; Darrell R Schroeder; Kenneth P Offord; Kay M Eberman; Richard D Hurt Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Paul M Cinciripini; David W Wetter; Rachel T Fouladi; Janice A Blalock; Brian L Carter; Lynn G Cinciripini; Walter F Baile Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2003-04
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: James F Thrasher; Noel T Brewer; Jeff Niederdeppe; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Rachel Grana; Annette R Kaufman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Yoo Jin Cho; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; André Salem Szklo; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; James Hardin; Ron Borland Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634
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: Marissa G Hall; Anna H Grummon; Allison J Lazard; Olivia M Maynard; Lindsey Smith Taillie Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.018
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