Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 201–204 | Cite as

The Impact of Cigarette Warning Labels and Smoke-free Bylaws on Smoking Cessation

Evidence from Former Smokers
  • David Hammond
  • Paul W. McDonald
  • Geoffrey T. Fong
  • K. Stephen Brown
  • Roy Cameron
Article

Abstract

Background

To effectively address the health burden of tobacco use, tobacco control programs must find ways of motivating smokers to quit. The present study examined the extent to which former smokers’ motivation to quit was influenced by two tobacco control policies recently introduced in the Waterloo Region: a local smoke-free bylaw and graphic cigarette warning labels.

Methods

A random digit-dial telephone survey was conducted with 191 former smokers in southwestern Ontario, Canada in October 2001. Former smokers who had quit in the previous three years rated the factors that influenced their decision to quit and helped them to remain abstinent.

Results

Thirty-six percent of former smokers cited smoke-free policies as a motivation to quit smoking. Former smokers who quit following the introduction of a total smoke-free bylaw were 3.06 (CI95=1.02-9.19) times more likely to cite smoking bylaws as a motivation to quit, compared to former smokers who quit prior to the bylaw. A total of 31% participants also reported that cigarette warning labels had motivated them to quit. Former smokers who quit following the introduction of the new graphic warning labels were 2.78 (CI95=1.20-5.94) times more likely to cite the warnings as a quitting influence than former smokers who quit prior to their introduction. Finally, 38% of all former smokers surveyed reported that smoke-free policies helped them remain abstinent and 27% reported that warning labels helped them do so.

Conclusion

More stringent smoke-free and labelling policies were associated with a greater impact upon motivations to quit.

Résumé

Contexte

Pour réussir à alléger le fardeau que représente le tabagisme pour la santé, les programmes antitabac doivent trouver des moyens de motiver les fumeurs à cesser de fumer. Nous avons examiné la mesure dans laquelle la motivation d’anciens fumeurs à cesser de fumer a été influencée par deux politiques de lutte contre le tabagisme instaurées récemment par la Région de Waterloo: un règlement municipal pour un environnement sans fumée et des étiquettes de mise en garde très crues sur les paquets de cigarettes.

Méthode

Une enquête téléphonique à composition aléatoire a été menée auprès de 191 anciens fumeurs du sud-ouest de l’Ontario en octobre 2001. D’anciens fumeurs qui avaient cessé de fumer au cours des trois années précédentes ont évalué les facteurs qui ont influencé leur décision et qui les ont aidés à ne pas recommencer à fumer.

Résultats

Trente-six p. cent des anciens fumeurs ont indiqué que les politiques sans fumée les avaient motivés à cesser de fumer. Ceux qui avaient cessé de fumer après l’instauration d’un règlement municipal interdisant totalement la cigarette étaient 3,06 fois (IC de 95 % = 1,02-9,19) plus susceptibles d’attribuer leur décision au règlement antitabac que ceux qui avaient cessé de fumer avant l’instauration du règlement municipal. En tout, 31 % des participants ont aussi déclaré que les étiquettes de mise en garde sur les paquets de cigarette avaient motivé leur décision de cesser de fumer. Ceux qui avaient cessé de fumer après l’instauration des nouvelles étiquettes de mise en garde étaient 2,78 fois (IC de 95 % = 1,20-5,94) plus susceptibles d’attribuer leur décision aux mises en garde que ceux qui avaient cessé de fumer avant l’instauration de ces étiquettes. Enfin, 38 % des anciens fumeurs interrogés ont déclaré que les politiques sans fumée les avaient aidés à ne pas recommencer à fumer, et 27 % ont déclaré que les étiquettes de mise en garde les avaient aidés à cet égard.

Conclusion

Des politiques antitabac et un étiquetage plus stricts étaient associés à une plus grande motivation à cesser de fumer.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, editors. Curbing the epidemic: Governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Tobacco Use and Dependence Clinical Practice Guideline Panel. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: A US Public Health Service report. JAMA 2000;283(24):3244–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS). Ottawa, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santi S. Applied Health Research. Analysis of KW Metropolitan Survey. Report prepared for the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, Waterloo, ON, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seigel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: A review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farrelly MC, Evans WN, Sfekas AES. The impact of workplace smoking bans: Results from a national survey. Tobacco Control 1999;8:272–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Environics Research Group. Baseline surveys: The health effects of tobacco and health warning messages on cigarette packages. Report for Health Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borland R. Tobacco health warnings and smoking- related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction 1997;92(11):1427–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Statistical Association 1978;73:40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Rourke D, Blair J. Improving random respondent selection in telephone surveys. J Marketing Res 1983;20:428–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of codes and outcome rates for surveys. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curry SJ, Grothaus L, McBride C. Reasons for quitting: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for smoking cessation in a population-based sample of smokers. Addict Behav 1997;22:727–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strahan EJ, Fabrigar LR, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Cameron AJR. Enhancing the effectiveness of message labels on tobacco packaging: A social psychological perspective. Tobacco Control 2002;11:183–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trotter L, Wakefield M, Borland R. Socially cued smoking in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues: A case for introducing smoke-free policies. Tobacco Control 2002;11:300–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samet JM, Yach D, Taylor C, Becker K. Research for effective global tobacco control in the 21st century: Report of a working group convened during the 10th World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Tobacco Control 1998;7(72):77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hammond
    • 1
  • Paul W. McDonald
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Geoffrey T. Fong
    • 3
    • 4
  • K. Stephen Brown
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  • Roy Cameron
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Ontario Tobacco Research UnitTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Behavioural Research and Program EvaluationCanadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of CanadaTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  5. 5.Department of Statistics and Actuarial ScienceUniversity of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations