Combining Inserts With Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs to Promote Smoking Cessation: A 2-Week Randomized Trial

Differential Responses to Cigarette Package Labeling Alternatives Among Adults Who Smoke: Results From a Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Little experimental research has evaluated whether the effects of cigarette package inserts with efficacy messages and/or pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs) differ across key subgroups of adults who smoke.

AIMS AND METHODS

Adults who reported currently smoking (n = 367) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: Small text-only HWLs on pack sides (control); inserts with efficacy messages and small HWLs (inserts-only); PHWLs showing harms of smoking (PHWLs-only); both (inserts + PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of cigarettes labeled to reflect their group. Every evening over 2 weeks, participants reported forgoing and stubbing out cigarettes before they finished smoking over the prior 24 hours, combined into a binary indicator of either behavior (eg, forgoing/stubbing). Separate mixed-effects logistic models were estimated to evaluate moderation of labeling group contrasts (ie, PHWLs vs not; inserts vs. not; inserts-only vs. inserts + PHWLs; PHWLs-only vs. inserts + PHWLs) by baseline covariates (self-efficacy to quit, intention to quit, education, health literacy, and time discounting), predicting day-level forgoing/stubbing.

RESULTS

Education moderated PHWL effects, with PHWLs predicting more forgoing/stubbing only among those with low education (OR = 4.68, p < .001). Time discounting moderated insert effects, with inserts promoting forgoing/stubbing only among those with low time discounting (ie, lower impulsivity; OR = 4.35, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Inserts with efficacy messages appear effective mostly among people with low time discounting, whereas PHWLs appear most effective among those with low education, suggesting their potential to address education-related disparities. Labeling strategies appeared equally effective across subgroups defined by self-efficacy to quit, quit intention, and health literacy. Combining inserts with PHWLs did not appear to mitigate moderation effects.

IMPLICATIONS

This randomized trial with adults who smoke suggests that cigarette packs with inserts describing cessation benefits and tips can promote cessation-related behaviors (ie, forgoing or stubbing out cigarettes) among those with low-time discounting (ie, low impulsivity). Alternative interventions may be needed for people with high-time discounting, as found in cessation trials. PHWLs appear most effective among those with low education, potentially addressing education-related disparities. No differential effects were found for those with different levels of self-efficacy to quit, quit intentions, or health literacy. Combining inserts and PHWLs may not be more effective than either alone.

Self-reported attention and responses to cigarette package labels at the end of a two-week randomized trial of cigarette package labeling configurations

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette package inserts that describe quitting benefits and tips may promote cessation; however, research is needed to understand better their effects, including potentially enhancing the effects of pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs).

METHODS

A randomized trial with a 2×2 factorial design was conducted with adult smokers (n=356) assigned to either small text-only health warning labels (HWLs; control); inserts with cessation messages, and the small text-only HWLs (inserts-only); large PHWLs (PHWLs-only); both inserts and PHWLs (inserts + PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs labeled to reflect their group. Upon finishing the trial, participants reported their past 14-day frequency of noticing, reading, thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, talking about labels, and forgoing cigarettes because of the labels. Ordered logistic models regressed these outcomes on labeling groups, and mediation analyses assessed whether attention (i.e. noticing, reading) to labels mediated effects of labeling exposure on other outcomes (i.e. thinking about harms/benefits, talking, forgoing).

RESULTS

The inserts + PHWLs group reported higher frequencies than the control group for all outcomes. Compared to the control group, both the inserts-only and PHWLs-only groups reported higher frequency of noticing (AOR=3.53 and 2.46, respectively) and reading labels (AOR=2.89 and 1.71), thinking about smoking risks because of the labels (AOR=1.93 and 1.82), and talking about labels (AOR=2.30 and 2.70). Participants in the inserts-only group also reported more frequent thinking about quitting benefits (AOR=1.98). Attention mediated all labeling effects except for the contrast between PHWLs only and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to text-only HWLS, cigarette labeling that involves inserts, PHWLs, or both appears more effective at drawing attention to warnings, which mediated the effects on cessation-related psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

Tobacco packaging littering behaviours among Australian adults who smoke: findings from cross-sectional and observational studies to inform the implementation of cigarette pack inserts

BACKGROUND

Cigarette pack inserts are small cards that highlight the benefits of quitting and promote use of smoking cessation support. With evidence from Canada that they increase self-efficacy to quit, quit attempts and sustained cessation, inserts are set to be introduced into tobacco packs sold in Australia. Some people have expressed concern that the introduction of inserts may create more litter if incorrectly disposed of on pack-opening.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional survey to assess self-reported pack-opening location and waste disposal behaviours of people who smoke to determine the potential for littering to occur when tobacco packs are first opened. We also visited a sample of supermarkets, convenience stores and tobacconists located throughout Melbourne, Australia, to discreetly collect observational data regarding pack-opening and waste disposal behaviours at the point of purchase.

RESULTS

Among participants in the cross-sectional study (N=369), the majority reported that they opened their most recent tobacco pack at home (70.9%) where there is little potential for littering, and this proportion was higher among those who smoke daily (78.6%) and men (74.3%). Self-reported behaviours that could result in littering were rare; 1.0% reported that they left tobacco packaging where they believed it would be collected for disposal. Of the 128 individuals observed at the point of purchase across 46 stores, 96.9% did not open the tobacco product immediately after purchase. One incident of littering was observed (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of cigarette pack inserts in Australia is unlikely to create a substantial amount of additional litter.