Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2004 May 1;95(3):201–204. doi: 10.1007/BF03403649

The Impact of Cigarette Warning Labels and Smoke-free Bylaws on Smoking Cessation

Evidence from Former Smokers

David Hammond 110,, Paul W McDonald 110,210,310, Geoffrey T Fong 310,410, K Stephen Brown 210,310,510, Roy Cameron 110,310
PMCID: PMC6976079  PMID: 15191132

Abstract

Background

To effectively address the health burden of tobacco use, tobacco control programs must find ways of motivating smokers to quit. The present study examined the extent to which former smokers’ motivation to quit was influenced by two tobacco control policies recently introduced in the Waterloo Region: a local smoke-free bylaw and graphic cigarette warning labels.

Methods

A random digit-dial telephone survey was conducted with 191 former smokers in southwestern Ontario, Canada in October 2001. Former smokers who had quit in the previous three years rated the factors that influenced their decision to quit and helped them to remain abstinent.

Results

Thirty-six percent of former smokers cited smoke-free policies as a motivation to quit smoking. Former smokers who quit following the introduction of a total smoke-free bylaw were 3.06 (CI95=1.02-9.19) times more likely to cite smoking bylaws as a motivation to quit, compared to former smokers who quit prior to the bylaw. A total of 31% participants also reported that cigarette warning labels had motivated them to quit. Former smokers who quit following the introduction of the new graphic warning labels were 2.78 (CI95=1.20-5.94) times more likely to cite the warnings as a quitting influence than former smokers who quit prior to their introduction. Finally, 38% of all former smokers surveyed reported that smoke-free policies helped them remain abstinent and 27% reported that warning labels helped them do so.

Conclusion

More stringent smoke-free and labelling policies were associated with a greater impact upon motivations to quit.

References

  • 1.Jha P, Chaloupka F editors. Curbing the epidemic: Governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.The Tobacco UseDependence Clinical Practice Guideline Panel. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: A US Public Health Service report. JAMA. 2000;283(24):3244–54. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.24.3244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Santi S. Applied Health Research. Analysis of KW Metropolitan Survey. Waterloo, ON: the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Seigel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: A review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:45–71. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.092601.095916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Farrelly MC, Evans WN, Sfekas AES. The impact of workplace smoking bans: Results from a national survey. Tobacco Control. 1999;8:272–77. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.3.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Environics Research Group. Baseline surveys: The health effects of tobacco and health warning messages on cigarette packages. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Borland R. Tobacco health warnings and smoking- related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction. 1997;92(11):1427–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02864.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Statistical Association. 1978;73:40–46. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1978.10479995. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O’Rourke D, Blair J. Improving random respondent selection in telephone surveys. J Marketing Res. 1983;20:428–32. doi: 10.2307/3151446. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of codes and outcome rates for surveys. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Curry SJ, Grothaus L, McBride C. Reasons for quitting: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for smoking cessation in a population-based sample of smokers. Addict Behav. 1997;22:727–39. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(97)00059-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Strahan EJ, Fabrigar LR, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Cameron AJR. Enhancing the effectiveness of message labels on tobacco packaging: A social psychological perspective. Tobacco Control. 2002;11:183–90. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.3.183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Trotter L, Wakefield M, Borland R. Socially cued smoking in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues: A case for introducing smoke-free policies. Tobacco Control. 2002;11:300–4. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.4.300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Samet JM, Yach D, Taylor C, Becker K. Research for effective global tobacco control in the 21st century: Report of a working group convened during the 10th World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Tobacco Control. 1998;7(72):77. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.1.72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES