David Hammond1, Jessica L Reid1, Pete Driezen2, James F Thrasher3,4, Prakash C Gupta5, Nigar Nargis6, Qiang Li7, Jiang Yuan7, Christian Boudreau8, Geoffrey T Fong1,2,9, K Michael Cummings10, Ron Borland11. 1. School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 4. Departamento de Investigaciones sobre Tabaco, Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica (INSP), Cuernavaca, Mexico. 5. Healis-Sekhsaria Institute for Public Health, Navi Mumbai, India. 6. Department of Economics and Bureau of Economic Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 7. China Tobacco Control Office, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC), Beijing, China. 8. Department of Statistics & Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 9. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada. 10. Department of Psychiatry & Behavorial Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 11. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: More than 100 countries have implemented pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages. However, few studies have compared how consumers from different geographic and cultural contexts respond to health warning content. The current study compares perceptions of warnings among adult smokers and youth in seven countries, to examine the efficacy of different health warning themes and images. METHODS:Between 2010 and 2012, online and face-to-face surveys were conducted with ~500 adult smokers and ~500 youth (age 16-18) smokers and nonsmokers in each of Mexico, United States, China, Germany, India, Bangladesh, and Republic of Korea (total N = 8182). Respondents were randomized to view and rate sets of 5-7 health warnings (each set for a different health effect); each set included a text-only warning and various types (ie, themes) of pictorial warnings, including graphic health effects, "lived experience," symbolic images, and personal testimonials. Mixed-effects models were utilized to examine perceived effectiveness of warning themes, and between-country differences in responses. RESULTS: Overall, pictorial warnings were rated as more effective than text-only warnings (p < .001). Among pictorial themes, "graphic" health effects were rated as more effective than warnings depicting "lived experience" (p < .001) or "symbolic" images (p < .001). Pictorial warnings with personal testimonials were rated as more effective than the same images with didactic text (p < .001). While the magnitude of differences between warning themes varied across countries, the pattern of findings was generally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the efficacy of graphic pictorial warnings across diverse geographic and cultural contexts, and support sharing health warning images across jurisdictions. IMPLICATIONS: Although over 100 countries have implemented pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages, there is little research on the most effective types of message content across geographic and cultural contexts. The current study examined perceived effectiveness of text and pictorial health warnings featuring different message content-graphic health effects, "lived experience," personal testimonials, and symbolic imagery-among more than 8000 adults and youth in Mexico, United States, China, Germany, India, Bangladesh, and Korea. Across countries, "graphic" pictorial messages were rated as most effective. Consistencies across countries in rating message content suggests there may be "globally effective" themes and styles for designing effective health warnings.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: More than 100 countries have implemented pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages. However, few studies have compared how consumers from different geographic and cultural contexts respond to health warning content. The current study compares perceptions of warnings among adult smokers and youth in seven countries, to examine the efficacy of different health warning themes and images. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2012, online and face-to-face surveys were conducted with ~500 adult smokers and ~500 youth (age 16-18) smokers and nonsmokers in each of Mexico, United States, China, Germany, India, Bangladesh, and Republic of Korea (total N = 8182). Respondents were randomized to view and rate sets of 5-7 health warnings (each set for a different health effect); each set included a text-only warning and various types (ie, themes) of pictorial warnings, including graphic health effects, "lived experience," symbolic images, and personal testimonials. Mixed-effects models were utilized to examine perceived effectiveness of warning themes, and between-country differences in responses. RESULTS: Overall, pictorial warnings were rated as more effective than text-only warnings (p < .001). Among pictorial themes, "graphic" health effects were rated as more effective than warnings depicting "lived experience" (p < .001) or "symbolic" images (p < .001). Pictorial warnings with personal testimonials were rated as more effective than the same images with didactic text (p < .001). While the magnitude of differences between warning themes varied across countries, the pattern of findings was generally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the efficacy of graphic pictorial warnings across diverse geographic and cultural contexts, and support sharing health warning images across jurisdictions. IMPLICATIONS: Although over 100 countries have implemented pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages, there is little research on the most effective types of message content across geographic and cultural contexts. The current study examined perceived effectiveness of text and pictorial health warnings featuring different message content-graphic health effects, "lived experience," personal testimonials, and symbolic imagery-among more than 8000 adults and youth in Mexico, United States, China, Germany, India, Bangladesh, and Korea. Across countries, "graphic" pictorial messages were rated as most effective. Consistencies across countries in rating message content suggests there may be "globally effective" themes and styles for designing effective health warnings.
Authors: Kevin D McCaul; Jill R Hockemeyer; Rebecca J Johnson; Kimberlee Zetocha; Kathryn Quinlan; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Ellen Peters; Daniel Romer; Paul Slovic; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Leisha Wharfield; C K Mertz; Stephanie M Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Seema Mutti-Packer; Jessica L Reid; James F Thrasher; Daniel Romer; Geoffrey T Fong; Prakash C Gupta; Mangesh S Pednekar; Nigar Nargis; David Hammond Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Ahmed I Fathelrahman; Maizurah Omar; Rahmat Awang; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Ahmad Shalihin Bin Mohd Samin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matthew Stone; David Strong; Claudiu Dimofte; Elizabeth Brighton; Jesica Oratowski; Tingyi Yang; Manar Alkuzweny; Atean Asslani; Katherine Velasco; Michael Skipworth; Noe C Crespo; Samantha Hurst; Eric C Leas; Kim Pulvers; John P Pierce Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Taghrid Asfar; Sara Chehab; Michael Schmidt; Kenneth D Ward; Wasim Maziak; Rima Nakkash Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Jamie Tam; Jihyoun Jeon; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Theodore R Holford; David T Levy; Rafael Meza Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2021-09-24
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
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: Simone Pettigrew; Min Jun; Ian Roberts; Kellie Nallaiah; Chris Bullen; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rima Nakkash; Malak Tleis; Sara Chehab; Wu Wensong; Michael Schmidt; Kenneth D Ward; Wasim Maziak; Taghrid Asfar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390