Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Self-reported attention and responses to cigarette package labels at the end of a two-week randomized trial of cigarette package labeling configurations. | LitMetric
Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States.
Published: June 2024
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
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.
