Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey

Background We assessed whether the Australian plain packs with larger graphic health warnings (GHWs) achieved three specific objectives of reducing the appeal of tobacco, increasing health warning effectiveness and reducing the ability of packaging to mislead about smoking harms. Methods We compared responses from continuous cross-sectional telephone surveys of n=2176 cigarette smokers during pre-plain packaging (April–September 2012, pre-PP) with n=759 surveyed in the transition period (October–November 2012) and n=4240 during the first year of implementation (December 2012–November 2013, PP year 1), using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results From pre-PP to PP year 1, more smokers disliked their pack (p<0.001), perceived lower pack appeal (p<0.001), lower cigarette quality (p<0.001), lower satisfaction (p<0.001) and lower value (p<0.001) and disagreed brands differed in prestige (p=0.003). There was no change in perceived differences in taste of different brands. More smokers noticed GHWs (p<0.001), attributed much motivation to quit to GHWs (p<0.001), avoided specific GHWs when purchasing (p<0.001), and covered packs (p<0.001), with no change in perceived exaggeration of harms. PP year 1 saw an increased proportion believing that brands do not differ in harmfulness (p=0.004), but no change in the belief that variants do not differ in strength or the perceived harmfulness of cigarettes compared with a year ago. Interactions signified greater change for four outcomes assessing aspects of appeal among young adults and two appeal outcomes among mid-aged adults. Conclusions The specific objectives of plain packaging were achieved and generally sustained among adult smokers up to 12 months after implementation.

[1]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Which types of televised anti-tobacco campaigns prompt more quitline calls from disadvantaged groups? , 2011, Health education research.

[2]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Adolescents' perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? , 2010, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[3]  R. Borland,et al.  Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. , 2011, Addiction.

[4]  David Hammond,et al.  The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[5]  D. Hammond,et al.  Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: a comparison of regular, limited edition and plain packaging , 2011, Tobacco Control.

[6]  S. Feig IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention , 2003 .

[7]  Roy Cameron,et al.  Graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels and adverse outcomes: evidence from Canadian smokers. , 2004, American journal of public health.

[8]  Do larger graphic health warnings on standardised cigarette packs increase adolescents’ cognitive processing of consumer health information and beliefs about smoking-related harms? , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[9]  Within-Household Respondent Selection : How Best to Reduce Total Survey Error ? , 2010 .

[10]  Young adult women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: a naturalistic approach , 2013, BMJ Open.

[11]  S. Michie,et al.  Effects of standardised cigarette packaging on craving, motivation to stop and perceptions of cigarettes and packs , 2014, Psychology & health.

[12]  G. Hastings,et al.  The limitations of fear messages , 2002, Tobacco control.

[13]  U. Mons,et al.  Do smokers in Europe think all cigarettes are equally harmful? , 2012, European journal of public health.

[14]  R. Lawson,et al.  The effect of plain packages on the perception of cigarette health warnings. , 1992, Public health.

[15]  P. S. Elliott Evaluation of the effectiveness of the graphic health warnings on tobacco product packaging 2008: executive summary , 2009 .

[16]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[17]  D. Hammond Standardized packaging of tobacco products: evidence review. , 2014 .

[18]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands? , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[19]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Personal tobacco pack display before and after the introduction of plain packaging with larger pictorial health warnings in Australia: an observational study of outdoor café strips. , 2014, Addiction.

[20]  C. D’Este,et al.  Socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers’ ratings of plain and branded cigarette packaging: an experimental study , 2014, BMJ Open.

[21]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Short-term changes in quitting-related cognitions and behaviours after the implementation of plain packaging with larger health warnings: findings from a national cohort study with Australian adult smokers , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[22]  D. Hammond,et al.  Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women , 2011, Tobacco Control.

[23]  R. Borland,et al.  Smokers' sensory beliefs mediate the relation between smoking a light/low tar cigarette and perceptions of harm , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[24]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Plain packaging: a logical progression for tobacco control in one of the world's ‘darkest markets’ , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[25]  James R. Bettman,et al.  The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice , 2009 .

[26]  R. Borland,et al.  Effects of mass media campaign exposure intensity and durability on quit attempts in a population-based cohort study. , 2011, Health education research.

[27]  D. Hammond,et al.  The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. , 2009, Journal of public health.

[28]  James Thomas,et al.  Is Consumer Response to Plain/Standardised Tobacco Packaging Consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies , 2013, PloS one.

[29]  D. Hammond,et al.  The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. , 2013, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[30]  M. Wakefield,et al.  How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study , 2008, Tobacco Control.

[31]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Standardised packaging and new enlarged graphic health warnings for tobacco products in Australia—legislative requirements and implementation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the Competition and Consumer (Tobacco) Information Standard, 2011 , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[32]  M. Goldberg,et al.  The effect of plain packaging on response to health warnings. , 1999, American journal of public health.

[33]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Personal pack display and active smoking at outdoor café strips: assessing the impact of plain packaging 1 year postimplementation , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[34]  D. Hammond,et al.  Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. , 2011, Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

[35]  Geoffrey T Fong,et al.  Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study. , 2007, American journal of preventive medicine.

[36]  Allison Ford,et al.  Young adult smokers' perceptions of plain packaging: a pilot naturalistic study , 2011, Tobacco Control.

[37]  Ron Borland,et al.  Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[38]  C. Moodie,et al.  Perceptions of plain packaging among young adult roll-your-own smokers in France: a naturalistic approach , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[39]  R C Frecker,et al.  Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. , 1989, British journal of addiction.

[40]  K. Cummings,et al.  Relationship of cigarette-related perceptions to cigarette design features: findings from the 2009 ITC U.S. Survey. , 2013, Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

[41]  L. Bauld,et al.  Young women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: qualitative findings from a naturalistic study , 2014, BMC Public Health.

[42]  D. Hammond,et al.  Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. , 2009, European journal of public health.

[43]  Sally M. Dunlop,et al.  Televised antismoking advertising: effects of level and duration of exposure. , 2013, American journal of public health.

[44]  James F. Thrasher,et al.  Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts. , 2014, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[45]  James F. Thrasher,et al.  The potential impact of plain packaging of cigarette products among Brazilian young women: an experimental study , 2012, BMC Public Health.

[46]  Nick Wilson,et al.  How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: findings from the ITC Four-Country survey. , 2009, Addiction.

[47]  Sally M. Dunlop,et al.  Impact of Australia's introduction of tobacco plain packs on adult smokers’ pack-related perceptions and responses: results from a continuous tracking survey , 2014, BMJ Open.

[48]  M. Wakefield,et al.  Are quitting-related cognitions and behaviours predicted by proximal responses to plain packaging with larger health warnings? Findings from a national cohort study with Australian adult smokers , 2015, Tobacco Control.

[49]  K. Cummings,et al.  The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents , 2002, Tobacco control.