250 likes | 339 Views
The relative effectiveness of graphic and text based health-warnings: findings from the ITC:4-country study. Ron Borland, David Hammond, Geoffrey T Fong, Hua H Yong, Warwick Hosking. Tobacco industry control. Tobacco use control. Constrain tobacco marketing. Information: Mandated,
E N D
The relativeeffectiveness of graphic and text based health-warnings: findings from the ITC:4-country study. Ron Borland, David Hammond, Geoffrey T Fong, Hua H Yong, Warwick Hosking
Tobacco industry control Tobacco use control Constrain tobacco marketing • Information: • Mandated, • Campaigns Programs to prevent uptake Cessation programs and aids Smoke-free rules Biology Regulate tobacco products Tobacco use Norms for use Consequences of use Elements of tobacco control
Mediational Model(s) of Policy Effects Proximal Variables (Policy-Specific) Distal Variables (Psychosocial Mediators) Policy Behavior Label Salience Perc Effectiveness Depth of Processing Perceived risk Perceived severity Intentions to Quit Quit Attempt Labels Immediate reactions: foregoing cigarettes Warning labels 3
The ITC Surveys Cohorts with replenishment 2000 per country per wave Around 30% new recruits in waves 2-5 Common questions 5 questions asked all waves 2 introduced at wave 2 4
USA UK Australia Canada OLD NEW
Questions in ITC surveys Processing frequency Noticing Reading or looking closely at Cognitive reactions Concern about health (W2 on) Thoughts about quitting Extent (W2 on) Amount over last 6 mths Behavioral reactions Concern about health (W2 on) Thoughts about quitting 7
UK AUST Processing of Warning Labels (current smokers at each wave) How often have you noticed WL in the last month? Scale: 1 = never 2 = rarely 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = very often UK peak and increase higher than Aust
UK AUST Processing of Warning Labels (current smokers at each wave) How often have you read or looked closely at WL in the last month? Scale: 1 = never 2 = rarely 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = very often UK peak and increase higher than Aust
Summary Text warnings processed more often ? Graphic taken in more quickly Or processed differently ? Artifact of larger change in prominence 11
UK AUST Cognitive reactions to Warning Labels (current smokers) To what extent do WL make you think about health risks of smoking? Scale: 1 = not at all 2 = a little 3 = somewhat 4 = a lot Australian peak higher than UK
UK AUST Cognitive reactions to Warning Labels (current smokers) To what extent do WL make you more likely to quit smoking? Scale: 1 = not at all 2 = a little 3 = somewhat 4 = a lot Australian peak higher than UK
UK AUST Cognitive reactions to Warning Labels (current smokers) In last 6 months, how much have WL made you think about quitting? Scale: 1 = not at all 2 = somewhat 3 = very much No diffs, Aust vs UK)
Summary Graphic warnings stimulate more appropriate thoughts (ie more intense thoughts) ? Graphic more emotionally salient No clear effect for frequency over time 15
UK AUST Behavioral reactions to Warning Labels (current smokers) Avoidance of WL in last month (composite measure on a 4-point scale, where 0 = no avoidance, 4 = avoid WL in all 4 ways) Australian peak and increase greater than UK
UK AUST Behavioral reactions to Warning Labels (current smokers at each wave) Have WL stopped you from smoking in the last month? Scale: 1 = never 2 = once 3 = a few times 4 = many times No clear diffs Aust vs UK
Comparisons with Canada Slower decline in effects in Canada than UK, especially to cognitive and behavioral reactions See also Hammond et al, 2007 18
Impacts of Warning labels Australia 2006 NB: Impacts of Warning labels at least sometimes
Demographic effects • Females avoid the new warnings more. • Stronger effects with younger age group. • especially main effects • foregoing cigarettes • thinking about risks • motivating to quit/stay quit • No consistent education effects Australian data only
Predictors of making quit attempts by the next survey wave Predictor W1W2 W2W3 W3W4 W4W5 Notice WL1.02 0.93* 1.00 1.05 Read/look at 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.95 All analyses control for sociodemographics (including country) and cigarettes per day; plus other Warning label variables 21
Predictors of making quit attempts by the next survey wave Predictor W1W2 W2W3 W3W4 W4W5 Think about ------ 1.13* 1.05 1.10* risks ------ (1.07) (0.99) (1.04) More likely ------ 1.19* 1.26* 1.20* to quit ------ (1.08) (1.14*) (1.08) Think quit 1.26* 1.17* 1.09 1.11 (6 months) (1.12*) (1.13*) (1.03) (1.07) All analyses control for sociodemographics (including country) and cigarettes per day; plus other Warning label variables. Figures in brackets below are after controlling for intention to quit. 22
Predictors of making quit attempts by the next survey wave Predictor W1W2 W2W3 W3W4 W4W5 Forego 1.51* 1.27* 1.42* 1.40* cigarettes (1.31*) (1.21*) (1.41*) (1.31*) Avoid 1.24* 1.15 1.02 1.04 warnings (1.14) (1.11) (1.02) (1.03) All analyses control for sociodemographics (including country) and cigarettes per day; and other Warning label variables. Figures in brackets below are after controlling for intention to quit. 23
Reactions to warning labels and quit attempts • ITC data: 4 wave-wave transitions • Forego cigs and attempts • All 4 (sociodemogs + other reactions + CPD) • All 4 (+ Plans) • Report prompting attempts and attempts • All 4 (sociodemogs + other reactions + CPD) • 3 of 4 (+ Plans) • Think of risks and attempts • 2 of 3 (sociodemogs + other reactions + CPD) • ?0 of 3 (+ Plans)
Conclusions • Graphic and text based warnings may have different paths of effect • Graphic more emotionally charged and stimulate more cognitions related to quitting • Graphic warnings better at stimulating cognitions that predict quitting • Graphic warnings seem to be more sustained • Graphic warnings work with less specific processing • Size is also critically important • Novelty also plays an important role • but, warnings do not wear out completely