Interpersonal communication about pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages: Policy-related influences and relationships with smoking cessation attempts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the relationship between interpersonal communication about cigarette health warning labels (HWLs), psychological responses to HWLs, and smoking cessation attempts. Data were analyzed from online consumer panels of adult smokers in Australia, Canada and Mexico, during implementation of new pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packs. Approximately 1000 adult smokers were surveyed in each country every four months (September 2012, January 2013, May 2013, September 2013, January 2014). Only smokers followed for at least two waves were included in the analytic sample. Participants reported the frequency of talking about HWLs in the last month (in general, with family members, and with friends). For each country, poisson generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were estimated to assess the bivariate and adjusted correlates of talking about HWLs. Logistic GEE models regressed having attempted to quit by the subsequent wave on HWL talk, sociodemographics and psychological responses to HWLs. The frequency of HWL talk gradually decreased in Canada (48%-36%) after new HWLs were implemented; an increase (30%-58%) in Australia corresponded with implementation of new HWLs, after which talking stabilized; and the frequency of HWL talk in Mexico was stable over time, where new HWLs are implemented every six months. Talk about HWLs was an independent predictor of subsequent quit attempts in Canada (AOR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.11-2.02), Australia (AOR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.05-1.89), and Mexico (AOR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.11-2.10), as was cognitive responses to HWLs (Australia AOR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.22-2.24; Canada AOR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.15-2.11; Mexico AOR = 1.30; 95% CI = 0.91-1.85). No interaction between talk and cognitive reactions to HWLs were found. These results suggest that interpersonal communication about HWLs influences smoking cessation attempts independent of other established predictors of smoking cessation, including cessation-related HWL responses. Future research should determine ways to catalyze interpersonal communication about HWLs and thereby potentiate HWL effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".