Abstract
Introduction:
Adding messages to cigarette health warning labels (HWLs) about the harms of smoking increases awareness of these health facts, but little is known about the impact of removing messages. This is the first study to directly investigate the impact of adding and removing messages from cigarette HWLs on smokers’ awareness of harms.
Methods:
Data were drawn from nine waves of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Canada Survey, a national representative cohort of adult smokers (n=5,863) conducted nearly annually between 2002 and 2013-14. Two analytical approaches were conducted: generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression models estimated adjusted percentages of correct smoking-related health statements at each wave, and segmented regression analyses modelled temporal trends in awareness before and after the revisions by measuring the difference in slopes.
Results:
Adding messages to HWLs significantly increased awareness that smoking causes blindness (OR= 3.36 (2.71-4.18); p<0.001; estimated increase of 1.01M smokers in Canada) and bladder cancer (OR= 2.14 (1.71-2.66), p<0.001; estimated increase of 1.09M smokers). Adding the warning that nicotine causes addiction did not significantly impact smokers’ awareness. Removing messages was shown to decrease awareness that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide (OR=0.53 (0.41-0.70), p<0.001; estimated decrease of 342K smokers) and smoking causes impotence (p=0.007 for the difference in slopes; estimated decrease of 354K smokers).
Conclusions:
Adding messages to HWLs increases smokers’ awareness of health facts, but removing messages decreases awareness. These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully considering the implications of adding and especially removing messages from HWLs, and the importance of regularly revising warnings.
INTRODUCTION
Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. The Global Burden of Disease Study estimated that in 2017, smoking caused 7.1 million deaths and secondhand-smoke (SHS) caused an additional 1.2 million deaths(1). Smoking has been causally linked to diseases in nearly all organs of the body, leading to numerous cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, and reproductive disorders(2).
Reducing smoking prevalence is critical to achieve a relative reduction of 25% in overall mortality from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). This goal cannot be reached without meeting the Global Action Plan target of reducing tobacco use among persons aged 15 years and older by 30%(3). Reducing NCDs, in turn, is a key objective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – particularly SDG 3, which also calls for the strengthening of the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)(4).
Warning populations about the harms of tobacco use remains a primary goal and key strategy to reduce smoking prevalence(5). Article 4.1 of the WHO FCTC states that “every person should be informed of the health consequences, addictive nature and mortal threat posed by tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke”(6). Increasing awareness of the harms of smoking is particularly important because smokers who report greater knowledge of smoking-related risks are more likely to intend to stop smoking, to attempt to quit, and to quit successfully(7-12).
Many people, however, are still not fully aware of the wide range of smoking-related health consequences(2). Studies have shown that while most people recognize that tobacco use is detrimental to health, many underestimate the risk and are often unable to identify specific health effects(13,14). A study conducted among smokers from Canada, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom found that although the majority of smokers acknowledged that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, substantially fewer believed that smoking causes stroke, impotence, and harm to non-smokers via SHS(13).
One of the most effective and widespread strategies for enhancing awareness of the risks of smoking is via health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packages(12-17). With extremely high exposure at the individual- and population-level, HWLs have a large potential to enhance knowledge of smoking-related health facts(16). Pictorial warnings that are regularly revised have been shown to be particularly effective. Large pictorial warnings are more likely to capture attention, resulting in greater information processing of content and improved memory of health risks over time(11,18-23). A study that evaluated the impact of warnings on the awareness among smokers in Australia, Canada, and Mexico found greater awareness of health risks in countries where pictorial HWLs were first introduced or recently revised(20).
Canada revised their pictorial HWLs in 2012, more than a decade after they were first introduced in 2001(24). While these revisions included the addition of new health messages and pictorials to tobacco packages, select messages were also removed. This study is the first to directly examine the impact of the Canadian HWL revisions on adult smokers’ awareness of the displayed health facts. Although research has shown that adding messages to warnings increases smokers’ awareness of these facts(12,14,15,20,25), to our knowledge no studies have directly explored the impact of removing health messages from cigarette packages. This study therefore tests not only if adding messages to HWLs increases awareness of these facts, but also if removing messages has the opposite effect.
METHODS
Study Design
Data for this study were taken from the ITC Canada Survey, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort survey conducted nearly annually since 2002. ITC surveys are designed to evaluate the psychosocial and behavioral impact of key national-level tobacco control policies of the WHO FCTC. To date, ITC surveys have been conducted in 29 countries covering over two-thirds of the world’s tobacco users.
The data analyzed in this study were collected over nine survey waves conducted between 2002 and 2013–14 (survey dates are shown in Table 1). Although the change in awareness between Wave 8 (2010) and Wave 9 (2013–14) was of particular interest because these waves were conducted directly before and after the 2012 revisions, including all pre-revision waves in analyses allowed for a thorough evaluation of the impact by accounting for the secular trends in awareness occurring prior to the revisions.
Table 1.
Administration dates of the ITC Survey, Waves 1-9
| Wave | Survey Dates |
|---|---|
| 1 | October – December 2002 |
| 2 | May – September 2003 |
| 3 | June – December 2004 |
| 4 | October 2005 – January 2006 |
| 5 | October 2006 – February 2007 |
| 6 | September 2007 – February 2008 |
| 7 | October 2008 – February 2009 |
| 8 | July 2010 – June 2011 |
| Revision of Warning Labels – May 2012 | |
| 9 | August 2013 – May 2014 |
Participants and Survey Procedures
Survey participants included adult smokers aged 18 years and older. Smokers were defined as having smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and smoke at least monthly. Participants lost to attrition were replaced by newly recruited smokers to maintain overall sample sizes of 1500–2000 per wave. Participants with at least two waves of data were included in the study.
Data for Waves 1–6 were collected using computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI), following a random-digit dialing (RDD) sampling design to ensure random selection of households (with landlines) within strata defined by 14 geographical regions. Online web-based surveys were piloted in Wave 7 and made available for all participants in Waves 8 and 9. Participants who did not complete the online survey within a set timeframe were re-routed back into the telephone interview queue to complete the survey by CATI(26).
Research ethics approval was obtained from the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee.
Measures
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic measures were sex (male or female), age group (18–24, 25–39, 40–54, or 55+), income (low= less than $30,000; moderate= $30,000-$59,999, high= $60,000 or more; or not stated), and education (low= high school diploma or lower; moderate= technical, trade school, community college, or some university; or high= completed university or postgraduate).
Smoking Behavior
Smoking behaviors were measured using smoking status (daily or non-daily) and the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI). The HSI is a measure of smoking dependence that combines ordinal measures of two variables: number of cigarettes per day and time to the first cigarette of the day (reverse scored). The sum of these variables generates a scale ranging from 0 to 6, with a higher number indicating a greater dependence on smoking(27). Values 0 and 1 were coded as low HSI, values 2 and 3 were coded as moderate, and values 4, 5, and 6 were coded as high due to low frequencies in some categories(28).
Awareness of smoking-related health facts
To select measures of awareness to include in the study, both sets of Canadian HWLs (pre- and post-revision) were reviewed, as well as all awareness items included in Waves 1–9. A measure was included if it was matched to the content of a HWL, and was present in at least one pre- and post-revision survey. Awareness of health facts was then examined according to whether messages were added to or removed from HWLs in 2012. A message that was continuously displayed on HWLs between 2002 and 2014 was also included in the analysis as a control measure. The smoking-related health messages included in this study are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Canadian HWL messages added, removed, and continuously displayed for which the ITC Canada survey included awareness measures both pre- and post-2012 revision
To measure awareness of each fact, participants were asked, “based on what you know or believe, does smoking cause…”: stroke, impotence, bladder cancer, and blindness (responses were coded 0: ‘no’, ‘don’t know’; and 1: ‘yes’). Smokers were also asked if they knew if cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide (responses were coded 0: ‘no’, ‘don’t know’; and 1: ‘yes’) and if nicotine is the main substance in cigarettes that makes people smoke (causes addiction) (responses were coded 0: ‘false’; and 1: ‘true’).
Statistical Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. Two principal analytical approaches were used. First, generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression models were conducted to estimate adjusted percentages of smokers who were aware of each health fact per wave. GEE models account for within-subject correlation arising when outcomes are measured on the same participant more than once(29). GEE models were estimated using a binomial distribution and the logit link function. Contrast estimates were conducted to produce comparisons between Wave 8 (pre-revision) and Wave 9 (post-revision) percentages.
Second, segmented regression analyses (also based on GEE regression models) modelled the temporal trends in awareness pre- and post-revision (for measures collected in more than two survey waves). Segmented regression analyses consist of dividing a linear trend into separate intervals at a specified “breakpoint” (date of the 2012 revisions), and a line segment is fit to each interval. A statistically significant difference between the intervals (slopes) can be taken as evidence of a treatment effect. Segmented regression analyses are an important evaluation method that places the evaluation within the context of time trends(30). These analyses account for the secular trend in the data and for the differing time intervals between waves, thereby producing more time-precise interpretations of impact. Because the time between survey waves varied, the median date of each wave was calculated and used to plot the temporal trends.
All regression models adjusted for sex, age group, income, education, smoking status, HSI, survey wave, survey mode (telephone or online), and time-in-sample (the number of prior survey waves a participant has previously participated in(31)). Missing values were excluded from the analyses (but shown in Table 2 to ensure accurate sample sizes). Analyses were weighted to allow generalization to the Canadian population of adult smokers. Further information on how weights were constructed for the ITC-4 Surveys can be found in Thompson et al.(32).
Table 2.
Unweighted sample characteristics of adult smokers in Canada, Waves 1-9 (n=5,863)
| Frequency (n) | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 2,750 | 46.9 |
| Female | 3,113 | 53.1 |
| Age | ||
| 18-24 | 683 | 11.7 |
| 25-39 | 1,711 | 29.2 |
| 40-54 | 2,152 | 36.7 |
| 55+ | 1,317 | 22.4 |
| Education | ||
| Low | 2,802 | 47.8 |
| Moderate | 2,140 | 36.5 |
| High | 903 | 15.4 |
| Missing | 18 | 0.3 |
| Income | ||
| Low | 1,614 | 27.5 |
| Moderate | 2,002 | 34.2 |
| High | 1,720 | 29.3 |
| Not stated | 503 | 8.6 |
| Missing | 24 | 0.4 |
| Status | ||
| Daily smoker | 5,456 | 93.1 |
| Non-daily smoker | 407 | 6.9 |
| Heaviness of Smoking Index | ||
| Low | 1,309 | 22.3 |
| Moderate | 2,634 | 44.9 |
| High | 1,852 | 31.6 |
| Missing | 68 | 1.2 |
| Retention rate (wave to wave) | ||
| Wave 1 | 2,214 | - |
| Wave 2 | 2,196 | 75.8 |
| Wave 3 | 2,108 | 71.2 |
| Wave 4 | 2,029 | 71.6 |
| Wave 5 | 2,022 | 70.4 |
| Wave 6 | 2,015 | 72.2 |
| Wave 7 | 1,846 | 75.7 |
| Wave 8 | 1,581 | 74.4 |
| Wave 9 | 1,592 | 71.8 |
Missing values were not included in analyses, but are listed in the descriptive statistics table to ensure accurate sample sizes.
RESULTS
The total number of participants included in the analysis was 5,863. Table 2 presents the unweighted sample characteristics of adult smokers included in Waves 1–9 of the ITC Canada Survey. Participants were somewhat more likely to be women (53.1%). Almost half (47.8%) of participants had a high school education or less, whereas the distribution of participants in low, moderate, and high income categories was fairly equal (27.5%, 34.2%, and 29.3%, respectively). The majority (93.1%) were daily smokers. Wave-to-wave retention rates were high and ranged from 70.4% to 75.7%.
Table 3 displays the GEE model-derived adjusted percentages of awareness in smoking-related health messages with 95% confidence intervals. Messages are categorized according to whether they were added, removed, or continuously displayed (before and after) on Canadian cigarette HWLs after the revisions. Figure 2 shows the difference between the predicted rates of awareness based on time trends (line of best fit based on GEE model-derived adjusted percentages), and the actual observed percentage.
Table 3.
GEE model adjusted percentages in awareness of smoking-related health messages among Canadian smokers, 2002-2013
| Added in 2012 | Removed in 2012 | Continuously displayed |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median survey date (Wave #) |
Smoking causes blindness (%) |
Smoking causes bladder cancer (%) |
Nicotine causes addiction (%) |
Smoking causes impotence (%) |
Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide (%) |
Smoking causes stroke (%) |
|
Nov 2002 (Wave 1) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | 60.7 (57.8-63.5) |
90.9 (89.1-92.4) |
84.6 (82.4-86.6) |
|
Jun 2003 (Wave 2) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | 59.7 (56.8-62.4) |
90.8 (89.1-92.2) |
84.3 (82.0-86.3) |
|
Jul 2004 (Wave 3) |
11.7 (10.0-13.5) |
N/A | N/A | 61.3 (58.6-62.4) |
92.8 (91.3-94.0) |
86.6 (84.6-88.3) |
|
Nov 2005 (Wave 4) |
15.1 (13.2-17.2) |
N/A | N/A | 63.5 (61.0-66.0) |
90.3 (88.6-91.7) |
87.1 (85.2-88.8) |
|
Nov 2006 (Wave 5) |
16.0 (14.1-18.1) |
N/A | N/A | 65.7 (63.2-68.2) |
91.2 (89.4-92.6) |
86.9 (85.0-88.6) |
|
Dec 2007 (Wave 6) |
18.5 (16.4-20.8) |
N/A | 90.1 (88.2-91.7) |
67.5 (65.0-69.9) |
N/A | 87.6 (85.6-89.3) |
|
Jan 2009 (Wave 7) |
15.9 (13.9-18.1) |
N/A | 89.0 (86.9-90.8) |
66.2 (63.3-68.9) |
N/A | 87.3 (85.2-89.1) |
|
Aug 2010 (Wave 8) |
14.7 (12.5-17.1) |
26.8 (23.7-30.1) |
90.6 (88.2-92.5) |
67.8 (64.3-71.1) |
92.4 (90.1-94.2) |
87.5 (84.7-89.8) |
| May 2012 | Revision of Warning Labels | |||||
|
Oct 2013 (Wave 9) |
36.7*† (32.6-40.9) |
44.0* (40.4-47.5) |
89.6 (86.9-91.8) |
66.2† (62.3-69.9) |
86.7*† (83.7-89.2) |
88.7 (86.1-90.8) |
Percentages are weighted
Significant increase (p<0.05) from 2010 to 2013 (GEE contrast of the means)
Significant difference (p<0.05) in slopes before and after 2012 HWL revisions (segmented regression analysis)
Figure 2.
The predicted trends and actual rates of awareness of smoking-related messages added to and removed from Canadian HWLs in 2012
Trends based on GEE model adjusted percentages
Impact of adding messages to HWLs on smokers’ awareness of those health facts
Smoking causes blindness
The percentage of smokers who were aware that smoking causes blindness increased slightly from 11.7% in 2004 to 14.7% in 2010 (p=0.04). After adding this message to HWLs, awareness significantly increased to 36.7% in 2013 (p<0.001). After the revisions, smokers were 3.36 (95% CI 2.71–4.18) times as likely to be aware that smoking causes blindness compared to before.
Accordingly, the segmented regression analysis (which accounts for the time trends in awareness over six waves conducted from 2004 to 2010) showed a significant increase in awareness after the blindness message was added to cigarette packages (pre-revision segment β=0.048, post-revision segment β=0.719; p<0.001 for the test of the differences in slopes).
Smoking causes bladder cancer
The percentage of smokers who were aware that smoking causes bladder cancer also increased significantly after this message was added to cigarette packages — from 26.8% in 2010 to 44.0% in 2013 (OR= 2.14 (1.71–2.66), p<0.001). Segmented regression analyses were not possible for this measure because knowledge about bladder cancer was only measured in one wave prior to the introduction of this message.
Nicotine causes addiction
There were no significant changes in awareness that nicotine is the substance that causes addiction before or after the 2012 revisions: rates of awareness increased slightly from 90.1% in 2007 to 90.5% in 2010 (p=0.76), and then decreased to 89.6% in 2013 (p=0.55). The segmented regression analysis showed that there was no significant change in the trend after the revisions (pre-revision segment β=0.011, post-revision segment β=−0.063; p=0.74 for the test of the differences in slopes).
Impact of removing messages from HWLs on smokers’ awareness of those health facts
Smoking causes impotence
The percentage of smokers who were aware that smoking causes impotence increased from 60.7% in 2002 to 67.8% in 2010 (p=0.004), during the time when this message was displayed on cigarette packages. Following the removal of the impotence message in 2012, awareness fell slightly to 66.2%, but this decrease was not statistically significant (p=0.42). However, the segmented regression analysis showed that the trend in awareness (which was slightly positive) significantly changed in a negative direction (pre-revision segment β=0.050, post-revision segment β=−0.149; p=0.007 for the test of the differences in slopes).
Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide
The percentage of smokers who were aware that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide remained stable at approximately 91–92% between 2002 and 2010 (p=0.28), the time period when this message was displayed on HWLs. Following the removal of this message in 2012, awareness significantly decreased from 92.4% in 2010 to 86.7% in 2013 (OR=0.53 (0.41–0.70), p<0.001). The segmented regression analysis also showed a significant decrease in awareness after the message was removed in 2012 (pre-revision segment β=0.014, post-revision segment β=−0.446; p<0.001 for the test of the differences in slopes).
Awareness of health messages continuously displayed on HWLs
Smoking causes stroke
The message that smoking causes stroke appeared on cigarette packages both before and after the 2012 revisions. The percentage of smokers who were aware that smoking causes stroke increased from 84.6% in 2002 to 88.7% in 2013 (p=0.02), but there was no significant change in awareness between 2010 and 2013 (p=0.35). Accordingly, the segmented regression analysis showed no statistically significant changes in the trend in awareness after the revisions (pre-revision segment β=0.037, post-revision segment β=0.003; p=0.73 for the test of the differences in slopes).
Estimating population impact of adding and removing health messages from HWLs
ITC Canada Survey is a nationally representative sample of Canadian smokers, allowing for estimation of the population impact of adding and removing health message from HWLs in terms of the number of smokers in Canada affected by these revisions. The percentage differences between the observed percentage of awareness and the estimated percentage from the pre-revision linear trend for the two added facts were (1) for bladder cancer: 36.7% observed – 18.2% linear estimate = +18.5%; and (2) for blindness: 44.0% – 26.8% (Wave 8 only; no prior data) = 17.2%. Multiplying these differences by the number of Canadian smokers in 2012 of 5.9 million(33) produces estimates that an additional 1.09 million smokers were aware that smoking causes bladder cancer and an additional 1.01 million smokers were aware that smoking causes blindness after these message were added to HWLs.
Using the same method for the two removed facts, the percentage differences were (1) for impotence: 66.2% observed – 72.2% linear estimate = −6.0%; and (2) for carbon monoxide: 86.7% observed – 92.5% linear estimate = −5.8%, yielding estimates that 354,000 fewer smokers were aware that smoking causes impotence and 342,000 fewer smokers were aware that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide after these messages were removed from HWLs.
DISCUSSION
This is the first longitudinal study to directly investigate the impact of adding and removing messages from cigarette packages on smokers’ awareness about the health harms of smoking. The results showed that smokers’ awareness that smoking causing bladder cancer and blindness both increased significantly after these messages were added to the Canadian warnings in 2012, with an additional 1.09 million smokers being aware that smoking causes blindness and an additional 1.01 million smokers being aware that smoking causes bladder cancer.
Although the message stating that nicotine causes addiction was also added to the warnings in 2012, there was no significant change in awareness. In fact, awareness that nicotine causes addiction remained stable between 2007 and 2013, ranging between 89.0% and 90.6%. A likely explanation for this finding is that a very similar message was displayed before the revision: “Cigarettes are highly addictive.” Therefore, though not explicitly attributing addiction to nicotine, this detail may be common knowledge among smokers (and the greatest impact of novel warnings is at the time of or directly after implementation(16)).
Importantly, this study is the first to examine the impact of removing messages from HWLs, and the results showed that doing so led to reductions in awareness of those health facts. Awareness that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide significantly decreased after the message was removed from HWLs, with 342,000 fewer Canadian smokers being aware of this health fact. Although the GEE analysis found that rates of awareness that smoking causes impotence did not decrease after the removal of this message, the segmented regression analysis, which takes into account the temporal trend in awareness before the revision, showed that there was a significant decrease in the percentage of smokers who were aware of this fact – equivalent to 354,000 fewer smokers. These findings therefore demonstrate that HWLs are an important source of health information for smokers, and that removing messages from HWLs decreases awareness, potentially reversing the benefits of adding health messages to awareness.
The findings of this study have important implications. Given that most smokers tend to underestimate the consequences of smoking, it is crucial that governments implement pictorial HWLs to better communicate the health harms of smoking(14,34). It is also vital that policymakers ensure the timely and frequent rotation of health messages on tobacco packages (as recommended by the FCTC), particularly as research continues to uncover the increasingly numerous health harms of tobacco smoke(2). A wider range of messages displayed on HWLs is likely to have a greater impact on smokers’ awareness of health harms, especially those that are less known, as the results of this study have shown. This is important because increased health knowledge is not only an important goal in and of itself, but increased smoking-related knowledge can influence cessation-related behavior(7-12). For example, increased knowledge about the harms of smoking has been shown to be associated with increased health concerns, which increases quit intentions and quit attempts(9,35,36).
Importantly, this study showed that the overall positive impact of adding messages to HWLs on smokers’ awareness of those facts was greater than the overall negative impact of removing them. This is reasonable given that the two messages added – smoking causes bladder cancer and blindness – were not generally known prior to their inclusion (27% and 15%, respectively) and thus their display on HWLs was more likely to have a greater impact on awareness compared to the impact of removing two messages – cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide and smoking causes impotence – that were likely to remain known due to the high awareness levels (92% and 68%, respectively) acquired during their previous and lengthy display. This demonstrates that policymakers need to achieve a balance between the benefits of adding new information and the costs of removing even widely known messages from HWLs. Achieving this balance may differ across countries, and may depend on the severity, prevalence, and novelty of the various messages that are being considered for inclusion on HWLs.
There are a few limitations of this study. Assessing participants’ levels of knowledge was based on yes/no questioning of a predetermined set of health conditions. It is possible that lower levels of awareness may have been observed if participants were asked to list smoking-related diseases unprompted (with open-ended questions). However, even if true rates of awareness were lower than those reported in this study, it is likely that the nature of the trend would be the same. This is expected because survey measurements were consistent over time, so even if slightly biased, the trend would still be detectable. Furthermore, a similar trend of increased awareness was found in previous research using unprompted message recall to measure smoking-related knowledge in Australia following the introduction of new content on Australian HWLs(15).
The restriction of the sample to landline telephones from Waves 1–7 is another potential limitation. However, this is unlikely to have significantly impacted the results as research conducted by the Government of Canada has shown that a very high proportion of Canadians used landline telephones throughout the years of this study(37).
Finally, a potential limitation is the non-randomized nature of this study, which can limit inferences of a causal relationship. For example, it could be possible that the difference in magnitude of impact between adding and removing warnings was influenced by warning presentation (e.g. image style). This is unlikely to have occurred, however, as made evident by the fact that a highly graphic warning (the pre-revision stroke warning) was replaced by a warning that conveyed the same message but with a far ‘milder’ image, and rates of awareness of this fact were not significantly impacted (deviating by less than a percent). Additionally, the use of a naturalistic observational design is a strength of this study as it allows for the examination of genuine behaviors without the impact of forced experimental conditions, thus increasing its external (ecological) validity(38).
CONCLUSIONS
The current study demonstrates not only that adding health messages to cigarette packages increased smokers’ awareness of these facts, but also that removing messages from warnings decreased smokers’ awareness of that information. The results emphasize that policymakers and public health officials must take careful consideration when deciding which messages should appear on HWLs in order to maximize the benefits of this key policy.
What this paper adds.
Health warning labels on cigarette packages are an effective communication strategy to raise awareness of the health harms of smoking.
Although research has shown that adding health messages to warnings increases smokers’ awareness of this information, this study is the first to directly examine if removing health messages from cigarette packages also decreases awareness.
This study showed not only that adding health messages to warnings increased smokers’ awareness of displayed facts, but that removing messages from warnings decreased smokers’ awareness.
These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully considering the implications of adding and especially removing health facts in health warnings, and also the importance of revising health warnings frequently, as called for by the Article 11 Guidelines of the FCTC.
Acknowledgments
Funding
The ITC Canada Project was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute (R01 CA100362, R01 CA090955, P50 CA111236 (Roswell Park Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center), and P01 CA138389); the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (MOP-57897, MOP-79551, MOP-115016); and the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (014578). Additional support in preparing this paper was provided to University of Waterloo by CIHR (FDN-148477). ACG was supported by the CIHR Doctoral Award – Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS-D) (#118068). DH is supported by a CIHR-Public Health Agency of Canada Applied Public Health Research Chair. GTF was supported by a Senior Investigator Grant from the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and a Senior Prevention Scientist Award from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.
Footnotes
Competing interests
DH has served as an expert witness in legal challenges against tobacco companies. DH and GTF have served as expert witnesses on behalf of governments in litigation involving the tobacco industry.
Patient consent
Obtained.
References
- 1.GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaboration. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018; 392: 1923–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 3.World Health Organization. Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020 [Internet]. Geneva; 2013. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/94384/1/9789241506236_eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 4.World Health Organization. Health in 2015: from MDGs, Millennium Development Goals to SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/200009/9789241565110_eng.pdf;jsessionid=C025F66891AC8AE48C7770AB130AE018?sequence=1 [Google Scholar]
- 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2014. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 6.World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yong H-H, Borland R, Thrasher JF, Thompson ME, Nagelhout GE, Fong GT, et al. Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts. Health Psychol. 2014;33(11):1410–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Cameron R, Brown KS. Impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking behaviour. Tob Control. 2003;12(4):391–395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, Giovino GA, Steger C, Cummings KM. Predictors of cessation in a cohort of current and former smokers followed over 13 years. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004. December 1;6(Suppl 3):S363–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Stewart DW, Cano MÁ, Correa-Fernández V, Spears CA, Li Y, Waters AJ, et al. Lower health literacy predicts smoking relapse among racially/ethnically diverse smokers with low socioeconomic status. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kees J, Burton S, Andrews JC, Kozup J. Understanding how graphic pictorial warnings work on cigarette packaging. J Public Policy Mark. 2010;29(2):265–276. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Behm I, Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R. Positive impact of Australian “blindness” tobacco warning labels: findings from the ITC four country survey. Clin Exp Optom. 2012. November;95(6):590–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, Borland R, Cummings KM. Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006. June 1;15(suppl_3):iii19–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid JL, Thrasher JF. The efficacy of cigarette warning labels on health beliefs in the United States and Mexico. J Health Commun. 2013. October;18(10):1180–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Borland R, Hill D. Initial impact of the new Australian tobacco health warnings on knowledge and beliefs. Tob Control. 1997;6(4):317–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hammond D Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20:327–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fong GT, Hammond D, Hitchman SC. The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings. Bull World Health Organ. 2009. August 1;87(8):640–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Wakefield M, Durrant R, Terry-McElrath Y, Ruel E, Balch GI, Anderson S, et al. Appraisal of anti-smoking advertising by youth at risk for regular smoking: a comparative study in the United States, Australia, and Britain. Tob Control. 2003. September;12 Suppl 2:ii82–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT, Arillo-Santillán E. Smokers’ reactions to cigarette package warnings with graphic imagery and with only text: a comparison between Mexico and Canada. Salud Pública México. 2007;49 Suppl 2:S233–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Swayampakala K, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Yong H-H, Bansal-Travers M, Krugman D, et al. Pictorial health warning label content and smokers’ understanding of smoking-related risks-a cross-country comparison. Health Educ Res. 2015. February;30(1):35–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control. 2015. May 6;0:1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Green AC, Kaai SC, Fong GT, Driezen P, Quah ACK, Burhoo P. Investigating the effectiveness of pictorial health warnings in Mauritius: findings from the ITC Mauritius survey. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2014. September;16(9):1240–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Moodie. Adolescents’ response to pictorial warnings on the reverse panel of cigarette packs: a repeat cross-sectional study. Tob Control. 2013;e93–e97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre. Canada: [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/countries/canada/ [Google Scholar]
- 25.Miller CL, Quester PG, Hill DJ, Hiller JE. Smokers’ recall of Australian graphic cigarette packet warnings & awareness of associated health effects, 2005–2008. BMC Public Health. 2011. April 17;11:238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.ITC Project. ITC Canada National Report. Findings from the Wave 1 to 8 Surveys (2002–2011). Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J. Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addict. 1989;84(7):791–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hyland A, Hassan LM, Higbee C, Boudreau C, Fong GT, Borland R, et al. The impact of smokefree legislation in Scotland: results from the Scottish ITC Scotland/UK longitudinal surveys. Eur J Public Health. 2009. March 11;19(2):198–205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Liang K, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cook TD, Campbell DT. Analysis of the Regression-Discontinuity Design In: Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1979. [Google Scholar]
- 31.ITC Project. Comparing Policy Measures across Multiple ITC Countries: Adjusting for Time-in-Sample. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Thompson ME, Fong GT, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Driezen P, Hyland A, et al. Methods of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006. June;15(Suppl 3):iii12–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Statistics Canada, Government of Canada. Smoking, 2012 [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2013001/article/11844-eng.htm
- 34.Weinstein N, Marcus S, Moser R. Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tob Control. 2005. February;14(1):55–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Cummings MK, Hyland A, Giovino GA, Hastrup JL, Bauer JE, Bansal MA. Are smokers adequately informed about the health risks of smoking and medicinal nicotine? Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(suppl 3):S333–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Yang J, Hammond D, Driezen P, Fong GT, Jiang Y. Health knowledge and perception of risks among Chinese smokers and non-smokers: findings from the Wave 1 ITC China Survey. Tob Control. 2010;19(Suppl 2):i18e–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Government of Canada. Communications Monitoring Report 2015 [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2015/cmr2.htm
- 38.Leichsenring F Randomized controlled versus naturalistic studies: a new research agenda. Bull Menninger Clin. 2004;68(2):137–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]