Table 3.
Effect of the implementation of PHW on the RSV in three periods with the best fitting ARIMA model per country
| Country | 1 month after implementation | 2–3 months after implementation | 4–6 months after implementation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RoCa | (95% CI) | RoC | (95% CI) | RoC | (95% CI) | |
| Denmark | 1.02 | 0.97–1.06 | 1.01 | 0.98–1.04 | 1.01 | 0.98–1.03 |
| France | 1.04 | 0.98–1.11 | 1.02 | 0.97–1.06 | 0.99 | 0.95–1.03 |
| Ireland | 1.01 | 0.92–1.11 | 0.99 | 0.93–1.05 | 1.01 | 0.96–1.06 |
| Norway | 0.90 | 0.79–1.02 | 0.96 | 0.87–1.07 | 1.02 | 0.93–1.11 |
| Switzerland | 0.96 | 0.83–1.11 | 0.94 | 0.85–1.04 | 1.01 | 0.92–1.10 |
| UK Stopb | 1.00 | 0.92–1.08 | 1.01 | 0.95–1.07 | 1.00 | 0.95–1.04 |
| UK Quitb | 1.01 | 0.97–1.05 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.06 | 0.99 | 0.97–1.01 |
RSV: relative search volume. PHW: pictorial health warnings. RoC: ratio of change.
a
Estimated RoC in RSV due to the introduction of PHW.
b
For the UK, two different search terms were modelled separately: ‘Stop smoking’, and ‘Quit smoking’. Significant effects are highlighted in bold (p<0.05).