Toshali Katyal1, Arturo Durazo2, Marlena Hartman-Filson3, Maya Vijayaraghavan4. 1. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 2. Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3. Assistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 4. Assistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA;, Email: Maya.Vijayaraghavan@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
Objective: Graphic warning labels (GWLs) are effective in communicating tobacco-related harms. Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we used purposive sampling to recruit 100 low-income smokers in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 2017 and February 2018 to participate in an intervention promoting smoke-free homes. We presented the 2009 Food and Drug Administration-proposed GWLs and explored perceptions of affect, efficacy, and appeal using questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months follow-up. Because of participants' interest in this topic, we subsequently conducted a qualitative sub-study among 20 participants exploring perceived efficacy of GWLs on smoking cessation. Results: In all, 87.3% and 59.2% agreed that GWLs were useful and would motivate cessation behaviors, respectively, at baseline. We found that the most common responses were shock (61.8%) and disgust (55.3%), whereas anger (29.0%) and annoyance (19.7%) were less common. Participants also reported that GWLs unequivocally illustrating smoking's harmful effects were more appealing than non-specific images, as were images that depicted positive cessation-related effects. Conclusions: GWLs appear to be an important health communication among low-income smokers. Future studies on GWLs should examine the association of negative affect and cessation among this population.
Objective: Graphic warning labels (GWLs) are effective in communicating tobacco-related harms. Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we used purposive sampling to recruit 100 low-income smokers in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 2017 and February 2018 to participate in an intervention promoting smoke-free homes. We presented the 2009 Food and Drug Administration-proposed GWLs and explored perceptions of affect, efficacy, and appeal using questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months follow-up. Because of participants' interest in this topic, we subsequently conducted a qualitative sub-study among 20 participants exploring perceived efficacy of GWLs on smoking cessation. Results: In all, 87.3% and 59.2% agreed that GWLs were useful and would motivate cessation behaviors, respectively, at baseline. We found that the most common responses were shock (61.8%) and disgust (55.3%), whereas anger (29.0%) and annoyance (19.7%) were less common. Participants also reported that GWLs unequivocally illustrating smoking's harmful effects were more appealing than non-specific images, as were images that depicted positive cessation-related effects. Conclusions: GWLs appear to be an important health communication among low-income smokers. Future studies on GWLs should examine the association of negative affect and cessation among this population.
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King; Linda J Neff; Jennifer Whitmill; Stephen D Babb; Corinne M Graffunder Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Travis P Baggett; Stephen W Hwang; James J O'Connell; Bianca C Porneala; Erin J Stringfellow; E John Orav; Daniel E Singer; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Abigail T Evans; Ellen Peters; Abigail B Shoben; Louise R Meilleur; Elizabeth G Klein; Mary Kate Tompkins; Daniel Romer; Martin Tusler Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 4.244