Evaluating early implementation of the innovative Canadian policy of cigarette stick warnings among adults in Canada who smoke: An assessment using repeat cross-sectional surveys and daily diaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2024, Canada became the first country to implement warning messages on cigarette sticks. Warnings were required on king-size cigarettes in April 2024 at the manufacturer level and July 2024 at the retail level. The purpose of this study was to evaluate responses to cigarette stick warnings among adults who smoke in Canada using a standard survey and a daily diary study. METHODS: We used two separate online survey (i.e. questionnaire) methods with Canadian adults who smoke daily and use king-size cigarettes, with data collected in February, May, and August 2024. The first method was a standard cohort survey (observations=1724; participants=999), with one survey each data collection period. Participants were followed up in subsequent waves. Participants reported noticing health information on cigarette sticks 'any' vs 'none', and ≥ 'almost all' vs 'fewer cigarettes' in last month. The second method was a daily diary study (observations=10572; participants=527), with brief surveys every evening for two weeks during each data collection period. Participants reported noticing health information on cigarette sticks ('any' vs 'none' in last 24 hours). Samples for the two studies were distinct. In both studies, we also assessed feelings about the look of cigarette sticks (1=very bad to 5=very good), forgoing cigarettes normally smoked (no vs yes), and quit motivation (continuous). Generalized estimating equations regressed outcomes on survey period, adjusting for sociodemographic and smoking-related covariates. RESULTS: Noticing stick warnings increased in both surveys [standard 'any': May=58%, August=73%, OR=2.29 (95% CI: 1.81-2.91); standard ≥ 'almost all': May=27%, August=44%, OR=2.56 (95% CI: 1.99-3.30); daily diary: February=6%, May=10%, OR=1.77 (95% CI: 1.29-2.44), August=16%, OR=2.92 (95% CI: 1.73-4.93), all p<0.001]. Over time, negative feelings toward sticks [February=4.10, August=3.91, mean diff= -0.19 (95% CI: -0.32 - -0.05), p=0.006], forgoing cigarettes [February=56%, August=63%, OR=1.44 (95% CI: 1.12-1.86), p=0.004] and quit motivation [February=4.74, August=5.03, mean diff=0.30 (95% CI: 0.06-0.53), p=0.014] increased in the standard surveys, but not the daily diary study. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian adults who smoke king-size cigarettes increasingly noticed cigarette stick warnings over the early implementation period. The standard survey also found increases in cessation-related responses to stick warnings. Future research should assess long-term impacts of this policy and validate standard and daily diary survey methods for evaluating labeling policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".