Dataset Information

Standardised packs and larger health warnings: visual attention and perceptions among Colombian smokers and non-smokers.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To measure how cigarette packaging (standardised packaging and branded packaging) and health warning size affect visual attention and pack preferences among Colombian smokers and non-smokers.

Design

To explore visual attention, we used an eye-tracking experiment where non-smokers, weekly smokers and daily smokers were shown cigarette packs varying in warning size (30%-pictorial on top of the text, 30%-pictorial and text side-by-side, 50%, 70%) and packaging (standardised packaging, branded packaging). We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine the impact of warning size, packaging and brand name on preferences to try, taste perceptions and perceptions of harm.

Setting

Eye-tracking laboratory, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Participants

Participants (n = 175) were 18 to 40 years old.

Measurements

For the eye-tracking experiment, our primary outcome measure was the number of fixations toward the health warning compared with the branding. For the DCE, outcome measures were preferences to try, taste perceptions and harm perceptions.

Findings

We observed greater visual attention to warning labels on standardised versus branded packages (F[3,167] = 22.87, P < 0.001) and when warnings were larger (F[9,161] = 147.17, P < 0.001); as warning size increased, the difference in visual attention to warnings between standardised and branded packaging decreased (F[9,161] = 4.44, P < 0.001). Non-smokers visually attended toward the warnings more than smokers, but as warning size increased these differences decreased (F[6,334] = 2.92, P = 0.009). For the DCE, conditional trials showed that increasing the warning size from 30% to 70% reduced preferences to try (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.42,0.54], P < 0.001), taste perceptions (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = [0.54,0.68], P < 0.001); and increased harm perceptions (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = [0.76,0.80], P < 0.001). Compared with branded packaging, standardised packaging reduced our DCE outcome measures with ORs ranging from OR = 0.25 (95% CI = [0.17,0.38], P < 0.001) to OR = 0.79 (95% CI = [0.67,0.93], P < 0.001) across two brands. These effects were more pronounced among non-smokers, males and younger participants. Unconditional trials showed similar results.

Conclusions

Standardised cigarette packaging and larger health warnings appear to decrease positive pack perceptions and have the potential to reduce the demand for cigarette products in Colombia.

SUBMITTER: Sillero-Rejon C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9306697 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStandardized packaging was phased in between May 2016 and May 2017 in the United Kingdom and July 2017 and July 2018 in Norway. In both countries, the health warnings on packs prior to standardized packaging being implemented were from the former Tobacco Products Directive library of warnings (text warnings covering 43% of the pack front and pictorial warnings covering 53% of the pack reverse). The warnings on packs, postimplementation, were from the current Tobacco Products Directive library of warnings (novel pictorial warnings covering 65% of the pack front and reverse) for the United Kingdom but unchanged in Norway.Aims and methodsLongitudinal online surveys were conducted prior to standardized packaging (United Kingdom: April-May 2016; Norway: May-June 2017) and postimplementation (United Kingdom: September-November 2017 and May-July 2019; Norway: August-September 2018). We explored smokers' response to the on-pack warnings (salience, cognitive reactions, and behavioral reactions).ResultsIn the United Kingdom, noticing warnings on packs, reading or looking closely at them, thinking about them, thinking about the health risks, avoidant behaviors, forgoing cigarettes, and being more likely to quit due to the warnings significantly increased from waves 1 to 2, and then decreased from waves 2 to 3, but remained higher than at wave 1. In Norway, noticing warnings, reading or looking closely at them, thinking about them, thinking about the health risks, and being more likely to quit due to the warnings significantly decreased from waves 1 to 2; avoidant behaviors and forgoing cigarettes remained unchanged.ConclusionsThe inclusion of large novel pictorial warnings on standardized packs increases warning salience and effectiveness.ImplicationsTwo longitudinal online surveys in the United Kingdom and Norway explored the impact of standardized packaging on warning salience and effectiveness. That warning salience and effectiveness only increased in the UK postimplementation, where standardized packaging was implemented alongside new larger pictorial warnings on the pack front and reverse, and not in Norway, where standardized packaging was introduced but older smaller text warnings (pack front) and pictorial warnings (pack reverse) were retained, highlights the importance of removing full branding and introducing stronger warnings simultaneously.

Project description:IntroductionSocial interactions are a key mechanism through which health communication efforts, including pictorial cigarette pack warnings, may exert their effects. We sought to better understand social interactions elicited by pictorial cigarette pack warnings.MethodsA controlled trial randomly assigned US adult smokers (n = 2149) to have their cigarette packs labeled with pictorial or text-only warnings for 4 weeks. Smokers completed surveys during the baseline visit and each of the subsequent 4 weekly visits.ResultsSmokers with pictorial warnings on their packs had more conversations throughout the trial compared to those with text-only warnings (8.2 conversations vs 5.0, p<.01). The highest number of conversations occurred during the first week. Smokers with pictorial warnings were more likely than those with text-only warnings to discuss the health effects of smoking, whether the warnings would make them want to quit and whether the warnings would make others want to quit (all p < .05). Smokers were more likely to describe pictorial warnings as scary, gross, or depressing and gloomy during conversations than text-only warnings (all p < .05).ConclusionsPictorial warnings sparked more conversations about the warnings, the health effects of smoking, and quitting smoking than text-only warnings. These social interactions may extend the reach of pictorial warnings beyond the targeted smoker and may be one of the processes by which pictorial warnings have impact.ImplicationsHealth communication can influence behavior by changing social interactions. Our trial characterized social interactions about pictorial cigarette pack warnings with a large longitudinal sample in a real-world setting. Understanding these conversations can inform the United States and other countries as they improve existing warnings and help tobacco control policy makers and health communication theorists understand how social interactions triggered by warnings affect smoking.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of Australia's plain tobacco packaging policy on two stated purposes of the legislation--increasing the impact of health warnings and decreasing the promotional appeal of packaging--among adult smokers.DesignSerial cross-sectional study with weekly telephone surveys (April 2006-May 2013). Interrupted time-series analyses using ARIMA modelling and linear regression models were used to investigate intervention effects.Participants15,745 adult smokers (aged 18?years and above) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Random selection of participants involved recruiting households using random digit dialling and selecting the nth oldest smoker for interview.InterventionThe introduction of the legislation on 1 October 2012.OutcomesSalience of tobacco pack health warnings, cognitive and emotional responses to warnings, avoidance of warnings, perceptions regarding one's cigarette pack.ResultsAdjusting for background trends, seasonality, antismoking advertising activity and cigarette costliness, results from ARIMA modelling showed that, 2-3?months after the introduction of the new packs, there was a significant increase in the absolute proportion of smokers having strong cognitive (9.8% increase, p=0.005), emotional (8.6% increase, p=0.01) and avoidant (9.8% increase, p=0.0005) responses to on-pack health warnings. Similarly, there was a significant increase in the proportion of smokers strongly disagreeing that the look of their cigarette pack is attractive (57.5% increase, p<0.0001), says something good about them (54.5% increase, p<0.0001), influences the brand they buy (40.6% increase, p<0.0001), makes their pack stand out (55.6% increase, p<0.0001), is fashionable (44.7% increase, p<0.0001) and matches their style (48.1% increase, p<0.0001). Changes in these outcomes were maintained 6?months postintervention.ConclusionsThe introductory effects of the plain packaging legislation among adult smokers are consistent with the specific objectives of the legislation in regard to reducing promotional appeal and increasing effectiveness of health warnings.