Cigarette graphic health warning labels and information avoidance among individuals from low socioeconomic position in the U.S.
- 525 Downloads
Although graphic health warning labels (GHWs) on cigarette packs have influenced cessation behaviors in other countries, no U.S. studies have explored the impact of avoidance of GHW content among individuals from low socioeconomic position (SEP). The purpose of this study was to determine the predictors of intention to avoid GHWs, and how avoidance impacts cessation intention, in a low SEP sample in the U.S.
Data come from low SEP smokers (n = 541) involved in a field experiment. The participants responded to questions pre- and post viewing of GHWs assessing SEP, intention to avoid them, emotional reactions, and intention to seek health information or quit smoking. Backwards stepwise logistic regression determined the predictors for intention to avoid GHWs. Simple and adjusted logistic regression analyzed the association between avoidance and its main predictors and outcomes of intentions to seek information or quit smoking.
Predictors for avoidance included being somewhat addicted to cigarettes (OR 2.3, p = 0.002), younger than 25 (OR 2.6, p = 0.008), and having medium (OR 3.4, p < 0.001) or high (OR 4.7, p < 0.001) levels of negative emotional reaction to the labels. Intention to avoid GHWs was positively associated with the intent to look for health information about smoking (OR 2.2, p = 0.002). Higher levels of negative emotional reaction were positively associated with cessation behaviors, with high negative emotional reaction associated with nine times the odds of quitting (p < 0.001).
Results indicate avoidance of GHWs does not detract from the labels’ benefit and that GHWs are an effective means of communicating smoking risk information among low SEP groups.
KeywordsTobacco Cessation Public health Special populations Health communication Information seeking
We would like to thank Sara Minsky and the Project CLEAR team for their work on this project.
This project was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R25 CA057711 and P50CA148596). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
- 1.World Health Organization (2008) Guidelines for implementing of Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Packaging and Labeling of Tobacco Products). http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_11.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2014
- 2.Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Public Law no: 111–31, H.R. 1256, 111th Congress. 2009. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1256. Accessed 9 July 2015
- 3.Meier KJ, Licari MJ. (1997) The effect of cigarette taxes on cigarette consumption, 1955 through 1994. Am J Public Health 87(7):1126–1130. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380885/pdf/amjph00506-0048.pdf.Accessed 15 Dec 2015
- 6.Viswanath K (2011) Cyberinfrastructure: An extraordinary opportunity to bridge health and communication inequalities? Am J Prev Med 40(5S2):S245–S248. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.005
- 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult cigarette smoking in the United States: Current estimates. 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm. Accessed 14 Mar 2014
- 11.Hammond D, Fong G, McNeill A, et al. (2006) 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 15 (Suppl 3): iii19–iii25. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.012294 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Miller SM (1996) Monitoring and blunting of threatening information: cognitive interference and facilitation in the coping process. In: Sarason IG, Pierce GR, Sarason BR (eds) Cognitive interference: theories, methods, and findings. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 175–190Google Scholar
- 20.Case D, Andrews J, Johnson J, et al. (2005) Avoiding versus seeking: The relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. J Med Libr Assoc 93(3):353–362. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1175801/. Accessed 1 Dec 2015
- 27.Reid J, Hammond D, Boudreau C et al (2010) Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: findings from the international tobacco control four country survey. Nicotine Tob Res 1(1):S20–S33. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2006) Results from the 2005 National Survey on drug use and health: National findings. Office of Applied Studies, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- 43.Wilkinson RG, Marmot M. (2003). Social determinants of health: the solid facts 2nd ed. WHO Regional Office for Europe Copenhagen. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98438/e81384.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2015
- 44.RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Admin. 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)Google Scholar