Table 1.
Results of GEE models testing changes in perceptions of pack/brand appeal, salience of HWLs and perceptions of relative harm of different brands within each country between Waves 1 and 2 among respondents of the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
| Germany |
Greece |
Hungary |
Poland |
Romania |
Spain |
England |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome measures | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % | W1 | W2 | % |
| (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | (%) | (%) | diff.a | |
| Pack appeal (no. of observations: N =16 949; no. of individuals: N=13 434b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Do not like the look of the pack at all | 7.6 | 12.3 | 4.7 ** | 9.3 | 13.6 | 4.3 | 5.1 | 14.7 | 9.6 *** | 7.9 | 22.1 | 14.2 *** | 13 | 15.9 | 2.9 | 18.3 | 15.5 | −2.8 | 13.9 | 54.9 | 41 *** |
| Brand appeal (no. of observations: N=16 973; no. of individuals: N=13 449b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality of their cigs is high/very high | 30.3 | 27.3 | −3 | 25.7 | 23.3 | −2.4 | 24.2 | 24.7 | 0.5 | 47.3 | 48.8 | 1.5 | 55 | 54.9 | −0.1 | 57.5 | 62.3 | 4.8 | 34.8 | 38.9 | 4.1 * |
| Brand appeal (no. of observations: N=16 970; no. of individuals: N=13 445b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Brands differ in prestige | 88.4 | 86.6 | −1.8 | 94.4 | 94 | −0.4 | 98.6 | 97.3 | −1.3 | 96.9 | 96.1 | −0.8 | 94.3 | 90.3 | −4 * | 91.4 | 91.5 | 0.1 | 87.1 | 83.9 | −3.2 * |
| Salience of HWLs (no. of observations: N=17 637; no. of individuals: N=13 992b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Notice HWLs first | 13.4 | 12.8 | −0.6 | 9.8 | 15.1 | 5.3 | 29 | 46 | 17 *** | 30.3 | 44.2 | 13.9 *** | 20.2 | 35.5 | 15.3 *** | 20.6 | 23.9 | 3.3 | 18.3 | 45.9 | 27.6 *** |
| Relative harm of different brands (no. of observations: N=16 969; no. of individuals: N=13 446b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Their own brand is no different in harm | 85.1 | 81.8 | −3.3 | 86.9 | 88.2 | 1.3 | 77 | 79.1 | 2.1 | 81 | 79.6 | −1.4 | 71.7 | 64.8 | −6.9 * | 82.4 | 85.5 | 3.1 | 78.1 | 78.6 | 0.5 |
| Relative harshness of different brands (no. of observations: N=16 972; no. of individuals: N=13 447b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Their own brand is no different in harshness | 55.4 | 59.6 | 4.2 | 38.2 | 40.8 | 2.6 | 63.8 | 67.1 | 3.3 | 66.8 | 60.5 | −6.3 | 55.5 | 48.3 | −7.2 * | 52.8 | 70 | 17.2 *** | 30.4 | 32.6 | 2.2 |
Note: The weighted estimates shown above are based on the results of a logistic regression model estimated using GEE, adjusting for gender, age, household income, education, wave of recruitment, nicotine dependence (HSI) and past-year quit attempts. Estimates shown in bold type are significant at P<0.05.
Absolute percent difference.
Number of observations refers to the total number of observations each respondent contributes to the model and number of individuals refers to the number of unique respondents present in the model.
P<0.05;
P<0.01;
P<0.001.