[Impact of cigarette packages warning labels in relation to tobacco-smoking dependence and motivation to quit].

OBJECTIVE the principal aim was to assess the impact of health warnings on cigarette packages in Italy, the reduction of daily number of cigarette smoked, in relationship to the tobacco-smoking dependence and motivation to quit. The second aim was to compare the impact of text warnings versus graphi depictions. DESIGN cross-sectional study (survey). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS the study was conducted through interviews to an opportunistic sample of smokers.The subject enrolled were adult smokers (years ≥ 18), living in the province of Rome. Data were collected in two outpatient clinics located in Morlupo and Rome. Interviews were administered in the waiting rooms, to patients or to their relatives/ helpers. The survey was conducted in June-September 2010. The sample size (266 participants) was computed using a power of 80%, a confidence level of 95%, an expected frequency of smokers with a low motivation to quit who reduced number of cigarettes due to warnings of 15%, and a frequency of smokers with a higher motivation to quit who reduced number of cigarettes due to warnings of 30%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES the effect of the health warnings used in Italy on smoking reduction was measured with the following self-reported items: "Are you or have you been influenced by the health warnings on cigarettes packages (in relation to the daily number of cigarettes smoked)?"; "Have you changed your smoking habits due to the warnings (for example: don't smoking after a coffee.)?"; "Have you ever stopped smoking due to the warnings?" The effect of labels that used shock images on cigarette boxes was measured using followed self-reported questions: "If shocking images were used on cigarette boxes, would they have greater effect than simple warning text currently used?"; "If your favourite cigarettes brand decide to change the look of its cigarette boxes with shocking images on smoking health damages, would you be driven to change it?" RESULTS thanks to the health warnings, 95% of the 270 participants were informed on smoking damages, 14% (34 smokers) reduced the number cigarettes per day, and 5% (12 smokers) attempted to quit. Forty-five percent of smokers did not know the real impact of light cigarettes on their health, and 49% decided to smoke light cigarettes after having read the warnings. Women were more susceptible to immediate consequences of smoking (appearance of wrinkles; p<0.001), and were more prone to switch to light cigarettes (p=0.002). Smoking dependence, computed with Fagerstrom's test, showed significant differences by age groups (higher in smokers aged 30-45 years; p=0.001), and in smokers who were not interested to deepen knowledge of smoking effects (p=0.009). Individuals more motivated to quit were younger smokers (p=0.012). Smokers aged ≥ 45 years (OR=2.54; 95%CI 1.05-6.17), more motivated to quit (OR=2.92; 95%CI 1.17-7.30), those who reported they do not like the smoking smell on their own clothes (OR=3.6; 95%CI 1.4-9.0), those who reported warning messages are important (OR=4.93; 95%CI 1.55-15.71), those who changed their own smoking behavior due the warnings (OR=3.31; 95%CI 1.10-9.99) were more likely to reduce daily number of cigarettes due the health warnings. Forty-seven percent thought that health warnings with text and images could have a higher impact in comparison to text-only warnings. Moreover, women were more motivated to change cigarette brand if a brand should introduce pictorial warnings (OR=2.54; 95%CI 1.41-4.56). CONCLUSION our study showed some positive effects of the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packages. In fact, almost all were informed on tobacco effects, 14% of them reduced the amount of daily smoking, and 5% attempted to quit. Many smokers still believe that switching to lighter cigarettes (e.g. those with less nicotine and tar contents) reduces smoking-related diseases. More than 50% of smokers recognized the importance of health warnings in communicating health risks of smoking, while women were more impressed than men by shocking pictorial warnings.

[1]  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.

[2]  A. Zuckerman,et al.  IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans , 1995, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.

[3]  James F. Thrasher,et al.  Smokers' reactions to cigarette package warnings with graphic imagery and with only text: a comparison between Mexico and Canada. , 2007, Salud publica de Mexico.

[4]  James F. Thrasher,et al.  Assessing the impact of cigarette package health warning labels: a cross-country comparison in Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. , 2010, Salud publica de Mexico.

[5]  S. Glantz,et al.  Cigarette labeling policies in Latin America and the Caribbean: progress and obstacles. , 2010, Salud publica de Mexico.

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

[7]  James F. Thrasher,et al.  Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years , 2009, Tobacco Control.

[8]  J. Koval,et al.  The potential effectiveness of warning labels on cigarette packages: the perceptions of young adult Canadians. , 2005, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[9]  K M Cummings,et al.  Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey , 2006, Tobacco Control.

[10]  G. Torre,et al.  Baccus, Tobacco and Venus: old and new challenges for Public Health , 2010, Italian Journal of Public Health.

[11]  S. Glantz,et al.  Tobacco industry youth smoking prevention programs: protecting the industry and hurting tobacco control. , 2002, American journal of public health.

[12]  M. Zanna,et al.  Enhancing the effectiveness of tobacco package warning labels: a social psychological perspective. , 2002, Tobacco control.

[13]  D. Nelson,et al.  Reactions of young adult smokers to warning labels on cigarette packages. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[14]  L. Kozlowski,et al.  The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. , 1991, British journal of addiction.

[15]  S. Chapman,et al.  “Avoid health warnings on all tobacco products for just as long as we can”: a history of Australian tobacco industry efforts to avoid, delay and dilute health warnings on cigarettes , 2003, Tobacco control.

[16]  J. DiFranza,et al.  Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention , 2002, Tobacco induced diseases.

[17]  A. Gray,et al.  “Generic” packaging — a possible solution to the marketing of tobacco to young people , 1990, The Medical journal of Australia.

[18]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .