SHORT REPORT
A pilot study of research methods for determining the impact of pictorial cigarette warning labels among smokers
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, USA
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Darren Mays   

Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven St NW, Suite 4100, Washington DC 20007, USA
Publish date: 2014-09-24
 
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2014;12(September):16
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Science to determine the impact of pictorial cigarette warning labels can inform decisions about warning label implementation and adjustments to their contents to maximize impact. This pilot study builds from earlier research on plain cigarette packaging to examine the feasibility of a method for determining the impact of pictorial warnings among smokers.

Methods:
The study was a prospective, within-subjects pilot trial where smokers ages 18–30 (n = 10) were exposed to pictorial warnings on their cigarette packs. On day one, participants completed a baseline interview with an expired carbon monoxide reading and affixed pictorial warning labels to their cigarette pack(s) they would use the next day. On day two, participants completed mobile phone text message assessments of smoking behaviors and protocol adherence. On day three, participants completed a follow-up interview similar to baseline. We achieved 100% sample retention and adherence with procedures. Compared with baseline assessments of perceptions and behaviors related to existing text-only warnings, at follow-up participants were more likely to report that pictorial warnings used during the study were noticeable (M 4.1, SD 1.3 vs. M 2.7, SD 1.2, p = .013), stopped them from smoking (M 1.6, SD 0.8 vs. M 1.1, SD 0.3, p = .052), and conveyed health risks of smoking (M 3.5 SD 1.3 vs. M 2.2, SD 1.1, p = .006). At follow-up, participants also reported the protocol was acceptable.

Conclusions:
These findings suggest this is a feasible method that with further validation could provide evidence that can inform decisions regarding implementation of pictorial cigarette warnings.

 
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Hammond D: Tobacco packaging and labeling policies under the U.S. Tobacco Control Act: research needs and priorities. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012, 14: 62-74. 10.1093/ntr/ntr182.
 
2.
Sanders-Jackson AN, Song AV, Hiilamo H, Glantz SA: Effect of the framework convention on tobacco control and voluntary industry health warning labels on passage of mandated cigarette warning labels from 1965 to 2012: transition probability and event history analyses. Am J Public Health. 2013, 103: 2041-2047. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301324.
 
3.
Institute for Global Tobacco Control: State of Evidence Review: Health Warning Labels on Tobacco Products. 2013, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
 
4.
Hammond D: Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011, 20: 327-337. 10.1136/tc.2010.037630.
 
5.
Husten CG, Deyton LR: Understanding the Tobacco Control Act: efforts by the US Food and Drug Administration to make tobacco-related morbidity and mortality part of the USA’s past, not its future. Lancet. 2013, 381: 1570-1580. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60735-7.
 
6.
Kraemer JD, Baig SA: Analysis of legal and scientific issues in court challenges to graphic tobacco warnings. Am J Prev Med. 2013, 45: 334-342. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.05.004.
 
7.
Mays D, Niaura RS, Evans WD, Hammond D, Luta G, Tercyak KP: Cigarette packaging and health warnings: the impact of plain packaging and message framing on young smokers. Tob Control. 2014, Epub ahead of print 2014 Jan 13. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051234.
 
8.
Sallis JF, Owen N, Fotheringham MJ: Behavioral epidemiology: a systematic framework to classify phases of research on health promotion and disease prevention. Ann Behav Med. 2000, 22: 294-298. 10.1007/BF02895665.
 
9.
Tercyak KP, Sampilo ML, Brancu M, Beck-Hyman M, Browne A, Kitessa D, Prahlad S, Wine L, Streisand R: Applying a behavioral epidemiology framework to research phases in child health psychology. J Clin Psychol Med S. 2006, 13: 191-196. 10.1007/s10880-006-9022.
 
10.
Ashley DL, Backinger CL, van Bemmel DM, Neveleff DJ: Tobacco regulatory science: research to inform regulatory action at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for tobacco products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014, in press.
 
11.
Moodie C, Mackintosh AM, Hastings G, Ford A: Young adult smokers’ perceptions of plain packaging: a pilot naturalistic study. Tob Control. 2011, 20: 367-373. 10.1136/tc.2011.042911.
 
12.
Moodie CS, Mackintosh AM: Young adult women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: a naturalistic approach. BMJ Open. 2013, 3: e002402.
 
13.
Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Eker F, Beguinot E, Martinet Y: Perceptions of plain packaging among young adult roll-your-own smokers in France: a naturalistic approach. Tob Control. 2014, in press.
 
14.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Current cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012, 61: 889-894.
 
15.
Wong NC, Cappella JN: Antismoking threat and efficacy appeals: effects on smoking cessation intentions for smokers with low and high readiness to quit. J Appl Commun Res. 2009, 37: 1-20. 10.1080/00909880802593928.
 
16.
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, 15 (Suppl 3): iii19-iii25.
 
17.
Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Driezen P: Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Study. Am J Prev Med. 2007, 32: 202-209. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.011.
 
18.
Berkman ET, Dickenson J, Falk EB, Lieberman MD: Using SMS text messaging to assess moderators of smoking reduction: validating a new tool for ecological measurement of health behaviors. Health Psychol. 2011, 30: 186-194.
 
19.
Mays D, Cremeens J, Usdan S, Martin RJ, Arriola KJ, Bernhardt JM: The feasibility of assessing alcohol use among college students using wireless mobile devices: Implications for health education and behavioural research. Health Educ J. 2010, 69: 311-320. 10.1177/0017896910364831.
 
 
CITATIONS (4):
1.
Advancing Tobacco Product Warning Labels Research Methods and Theory: A Summary of a Grantee Meeting Held by the US National Cancer Institute
James F Thrasher, Noel T Brewer, Jeff Niederdeppe, Ellen Peters, Andrew A Strasser, Rachel Grana, Annette R Kaufman
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
 
2.
Testing warning messages on smokers’ cigarette packages: a standardised protocol
Noel T Brewer, Marissa G Hall, Joseph G L Lee, Kathryn Peebles, Seth M Noar, Kurt M Ribisl
Tobacco Control
 
3.
Adult smokers’ perceptions of cigarette pack inserts promoting cessation: a focus group study
Crawford Moodie
Tobacco Control
 
4.
Exploring the impact of efficacy messages on cessation-related outcomes using Ecological Momentary Assessment
Victoria Lambert, Stuart Ferguson, Jeff Niederdeppe, David Hammond, James Hardin, James Thrasher
Tobacco Induced Diseases
 
eISSN:1617-9625