Literature DB >> 32918822

Effectiveness of tobacco warning labels before and after implementation of the European Tobacco Products Directive-findings from the longitudinal EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe surveys.

Sarah Kahnert1,2, Pete Driezen3,4, James Balmford5, Christina N Kyriakos6,7, Sarah Aleyan4,8, Sara C Hitchman8, Sarah Nogueira9,10,11,12, Tibor Demjén13, Esteve Fernández9,10,11,12, Paraskevi A Katsaounou14,15, Antigona C Trofor16,17, Krzysztof Przewoźniak18,19,20, Witold A Zatoński18,21, Geoffrey T Fong3,4,22, Constantine I Vardavas6,7,15, Ute Mons1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tobacco product packaging is a key part of marketing efforts to make tobacco use appealing. In contrast, large, prominent health warnings are intended to inform individuals about the risks of smoking. In the European Union, since May 2016, the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU (TPD2) requires tobacco product packages to carry combined health warnings consisting of a picture, a text warning and information on stop smoking services, covering 65% of the front and back of the packages.
METHODS: Key measures of warning label effectiveness (salience, cognitive reactions and behavioural reaction) before and after implementation of the TPD2, determinants of warning labels' effectiveness and country differences were examined in a longitudinal sample of 6011 adult smokers from Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain (EUREST-PLUS Project) using longitudinal Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models.
RESULTS: In the pooled sample, the warning labels' effectiveness increased significantly over time in terms of salience (adjusted OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03-1.35), while cognitive and behavioural reactions did not show clear increases. Generally, among women, more highly educated smokers and less addicted smokers, the effectiveness of warning labels tended to be higher.
CONCLUSION: We found an increase in salience, but no clear increases for cognitive and behavioural reactions to the new warning labels as required by the TPD2. While it is likely that our study underestimated the impact of the new pictorial warning labels, it provides evidence that health messages on tobacco packaging are more salient when supported by large pictures.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32918822      PMCID: PMC7526774          DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Public Health        ISSN: 1101-1262            Impact factor:   3.367


  19 in total

1.  The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents.

Authors:  M Wakefield; C Morley; J K Horan; K M Cummings
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study.

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

3.  The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk.

Authors:  David Hammond; Carla Parkinson
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 2.341

4.  Changes in effectiveness of cigarette health warnings over time in Canada and the United States, 2002-2011.

Authors:  Sara C Hitchman; Pete Driezen; Christine Logel; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 4.244

5.  How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: findings from the ITC Four-Country survey.

Authors:  Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Nick Wilson; Geoffrey T Fong; David Hammond; K Michael Cummings; Warwick Hosking; Ann McNeill
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 6.526

6.  Investigating the effectiveness of pictorial health warnings in Mauritius: findings from the ITC Mauritius survey.

Authors:  Annika C Green; Susan C Kaai; Geoffrey T Fong; Pete Driezen; Anne C K Quah; Premduth Burhoo
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 7.  The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents.

Authors:  Kathy Kotnowski; David Hammond
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 8.  The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies.

Authors:  Seth M Noar; Diane B Francis; Christy Bridges; Jennah M Sontag; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Adult smokers' reactions to pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packs in Thailand and moderating effects of type of cigarette smoked: findings from the international tobacco control southeast Asia survey.

Authors:  Hua-Hie Yong; Geoffrey T Fong; Pete Driezen; Ron Borland; Anne C K Quah; Buppha Sirirassamee; Stephen Hamann; Maizurah Omar
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 4.244

10.  Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention.

Authors:  J R Difranza; D M Clark; R W Pollay
Journal:  Tob Induc Dis       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.600

View more
  2 in total

1.  Evaluating the impact of the Tobacco Products Directive within the context of the FCTC in Europe-findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys: introductory Commentary.

Authors:  Constantine I Vardavas; Christina N Kyriakos; Ann McNeill; Geoffrey T Fong
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.367

2.  Price Policy and Taxation as Effective Strategies for Tobacco Control.

Authors:  Richard Felsinger; Ernest Groman
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-04-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.