Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Perceptions and acceptability of pictorial health warning labels vs text only - a cross-sectional study in Lao PDR

  • 1, 3Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 2
BMC Public Health201515:1094

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2415-9

Received: 14 May 2015

Accepted: 12 October 2015

Published: 28 October 2015

Abstract

Background

In Lao PDR, health warnings were first introduced with printed warning messages on the side of the cigarette package in 1993 and again in 2004. Lao PDR same year ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) but has not yet implemented pictorial health warnings. This paper aims to examine the perception and opinion of policymakers on “text-only” and “pictorial” health warnings and to understand lay people’s perceptions on current health warnings and their opinions on the recommended types of health warnings.

Methods

A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods were used in this cross-sectional study conducted in 2008. A purposive sample of 15 policymakers, and a representative sample of 1360 smokers and non-smokers were recruited. A range of different areas were covered including consumer attitudes towards current and proposed cigarette package design, views on health warning messages on the flip/slide and inserts, and views on the relative importance of the size, content and pictures of health warning messages. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used.

Results

Policy makers and survey respondents said that the current health warning messages were inappropriate, ineffective, and too small in size. All respondents perceived pictorial health warnings as a potentially powerful element that could be added to the messages that can communicate quickly, and dramatically. The majority of policymakers and survey respondents strongly supported the implementation of pictorial health warnings.

The non-smokers agreed that the graphic pictorial health warnings were generally more likely than written health warnings to stimulate thinking about the health risks of smoking, by conveying potential health effects, increasing and reinforcing awareness of the negative health effect of smoking, aiding memorability of the health effects and arousing fear of smoking among smokers.

Conclusions

The study suggested that current warnings are too small and that content is inadequate and designed to be hidden on the side pack. These findings are in line with FCTC’s requirements and provide strong support for introducing pictorial warning labels also in Lao PDR. Furthermore, the awareness of Members of Parliament about tobacco control measures holds promise at the highest political level.

Keywords

  • Tobacco
  • Smoking
  • Health warnings
  • Awareness
  • Policy makers
  • Lao PDR

Background

In Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), health warnings were first introduced in the country in 1993 with printed warning messages on the sides of the package of the cigarettes in the Lao language. The first brand of cigarettes was “Laimthong” followed by “Dok MaiDaeng”, whith the health warnings in English. The Marlboro and L&M cigarettes carried health warnings in both the Lao and English languages at the bottom of the front of the package. There are two big tobacco companies in Lao PDR, namely Lao-China Lucky Tobacco Company Limited and Lao Tobacco Company Limited, producing the two most popular brands of cigarettes: A Deng and Dok MaiDaeng (Red Flower) [1]. From 2003 to 2014, the Ministry of Health (MoH) also developed health warnings describing the hazards of smoking such as “Smoking is dangerous to health” in Lao and “do not sell tobacco to children under 18 years old” which were printed on the cigarette brand “555”. The aim of health warnings on tobacco products was to provide information about the health risks of smoking, the benefits of quitting, and to motivate people to quit [2].
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Current Health Message of Health warnings

In June 2004, Lao PDR ratified the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first global tobacco control treaty. According to the FCTC, health warnings are required. Specifically, Article 11 states that the health warnings should be large, clear, visible, legible, and “should” cover 50 % or more, but no less than 30 % of the total display areas and may include pictures [3]. According to the labeling of Tobacco Product Containers Regulations, the health warnings on cigarette packages must be in Lao language and 6 warnings (Fig. 1) are to be carried in rotations approved by the Ministry of Health, (MOH) No 660/MOH dated 23 November, 2006 [4, 5].

According to the Tobacco Law endorsed in 2009, labels are texts determined by the government and printed on front and back sides of each packet, parcel, carton and case to show tobacco users that this product is dangerous and harmful to human health [6]. The tobacco companies in Lao PDR continue to ignore the health warning regulations. While the deadline for Lao to comply with the FCTC Article 11 was December 2009, Lao is pushing for a decree to help enforce the tobacco companies’ compliance with the regulations. These warnings were to be displayed in bold, white, letters in Saysetha Lao font with a size of 20, and on a black background covering the lower 30 % of the two largest surfaces of the packet. In the case of imported cigarettes, this should follow the current regulations of Lao PDR, should include key messages, and should cover 50 % or more of the displayed areas. More than 50 countries have adopted the FCTC recommendation for pictorial warnings that cover at least half of the package [7], but not Lao PDR [4].

Countries such as Canada, Brazil, Poland and Australia have already introduced graphic warnings through new legislations in this area, using more prominent messages and pictorial images. Previous research has suggested the role of on-pack messages as a valid health communication tool. A survey carried out in Australia [8] reported that health messages on cigarette packs resulted in an increased probability that the warning is noticed, and made smokers more likely to consider negative consequences.

Pictorial warnings are also necessary, particularly in countries with low literacy rates or where research shows smokers are ignoring standard warning labels. In Lao PDR the smoking prevalence among males is 43.1 %, and for females 8.4 %. The prevalence of smokeless tobacco was 7.9 % among female adults and 1 % for male adults [9]. Previous studies have shown that smokers in countries where a warning depicts a particular health hazard of smoking (e.g., impotence) are much more likely to know about such hazards [10].

Health warnings are important because they play a role in educating and informing smokers, especially young smokers, of the health risks of smoking (Elliot and Shanahan. Evaluation of the Health Warning Labels on Tobacco Products and Evaluation of the Commonwealth’s Information Line, prepared for Drugs of Dependence Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. unpublished). Previous studies highlight the potential of on-pack health information to inform smokers of the hazards of smoking, and to encourage quitting and to disrupt tobacco brand imagery [1113]. Thus, the principle of large, picture-based warnings has been accepted on five continents. Amongst other advantages such warnings allow the chance to reach more vulnerable groups including women and children of smokers [14].

In order to minimize the disease caused by smoking, efforts need to be taken to make people aware of the consequences of smoking such as lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and to ensure that the most effective method is chosen to do this. Hence health warnings need to be designed and tested in order to recommend effective health warnings to the health policymakers. In addition, new regulation of health warnings describing the effect of tobacco use and pictorial warnings on all of tobacco products should be implemented in order to generate awareness of the hazards of smoking.

To our knowledge, this is the first study on cigarette package health warnings in Lao PDR. Our aim was to examine perceptions and of, and responses of pictorial and text health warnings among policymakers, members of parliament and the general public. The specific aims of this study were to: 1) describe perceptions of current text-only health warnings by smoking status, 2) examine the perceived effect of text-only health warnings by smoking status, and 3) to assess the perceived effectiveness of the pictorial health warnings as compared to text-only warnings.

Methods

Setting/study site

Lao PDR (Laos), a lower middle-income country, has 17 administrative provinces, one capital city and a population of 6,7 million. Target focus groups and testing were conducted in the Vientiane Capital City. The main reason for selecting this study site is that many government and non-government facilities and the National Assemblies are concentrated in Vientiane. In addition, there are many manufacturing factories, including those of the tobacco industry. Moreover, there were also some data available of the prevalence of smoking in Vientiane Capital city, which consisted of 4 urban districts (Chanthabury, Saysetha, Sisattanak, Sikhottabong) and 5 semi-urban and rural districts (Xaythany, Naxaythong, Hadxayphong, Santhong, Pakgnum). The Sikhottabong and Chanthabury districts were randomly selected as urban districts and Xaythany and Naxaythong districts were randomly included as semi-urban and rural districts.

This mixed-method study combined quantitative and qualitative research and covered a range of topics including consumer attitudes towards current and proposed cigarette package design, views on health warning messages on the flip/slide and inserts, and views on the relative importance of the size, content and pictures of health warning messages. Two different sub-studies were conducted: i) exploring the perceptions of policy makers; and ii) a survey of smokers and non-smokers.

Data collection

In-depth interview of policymakers

A qualitative research methodology [15] was used to assess the perception and opinion of policymakers on health warnings on cigarette packs and the response of the pictorial design of tobacco health warnings. Qualitative in-depth interviews were used. The key informants were policymakers such as Members of Parliament who were chosen using purposive sampling. Initially, we recruited about 15 members of parliament from different ministries such as health, education, agriculture, culture, commerce and trade, and finance. However, the parliament members were not representatives of the ministries but were more representative of their provinces. In total, 15 parliament members from 14 out of 17 provinces were recruited for the study, with the exception of parliaments from Lunagnamtha, Champassack and Khammouane provinces. The key-informants were interviewed in Vientiane Capital during their Assembly meeting and they were asked about their opinion and attitudes regarding current health warnings, the most effective way of labelling tobacco to discourage smoking, and their opinion regarding the printed pictorial health warnings.

Survey of smokers and Non-smokers-Lay people

The aim of the survey of smokers and non- smokers was to capture their understanding of current health warnings and their view of the preferable type of health warnings, including format, colour and graphics, position and coverage, rotation and inserts, and other information (Additional file 1).

The target groups were adults aged 15–55 years of age. In total, 1360 participants were recruited (Table 1). They were selected in public places such as shopping centres, public parks, markets, restaurants, sporting venues, and entertainment venues. This method allowed us to approach target groups from different backgrounds. We changed location daily when recruiting participants. The respondents were approached privately, the purpose of the study was explained to them and they were then invited to participate in the study.
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents by smoking status

 

Non-Smoker

Smoker

Total

P value

Variables

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

Age (Mean = 32.42, SD = 13.68; Min-15, Max-55)

0.327

 15-20

264

34.4

197

33.2

461

33.9

 

 21-35

205

26.7

143

24.1

348

25.6

 

 36-55

298

38.9

253

42.7

551

40.5

 

Gender

<.001

 Male

432

56.3

523

88.2

955

70.2

 

 Female

335

43.7

70

11.8

405

29.8

 

Education level

<.001

 No schooling

4

0.5

14

2.4

18

1.3

 

 Lower elementary

11

1.4

14

2.4

25

1.8

 

 Upper elementary

80

10.4

53

8.9

133

9.8

 

 Lower secondary

106

13.8

118

19.9

224

16.5

 

 Upper secondary

249

32.5

208

35.1

457

33.6

 

 Pre-university

114

14.9

73

12.3

187

13.8

 

 Diploma

56

7.3

41

6.9

97

7.1

 

Bachelor

135

17.6

67

11.3

202

14.8

 

 Masters, PhD

12

1.6

5

0.8

17

1.3

 

Occupation

<.001

 Student

273

35.6

134

22.6

407

29.9

 

 Private Officer

71

9.3

64

10.8

135

9.9

 

 Government officer

120

15.6

72

12.1

192

14.1

 

 Farmer

19

2.5

22

3.7

41

3.0

 

 Housewife

31

4.0

10

1.7

41

3.0

 

 Owner enterprise

39

5.1

31

5.2

70

5.1

 

 Merchandise

114

14.9

61

10.3

175

12.9

 

 Daily paid worker

61

8.0

149

25.1

210

15.4

 

 Unemployed

23

3.0

32

5.4

55

4.1

 

 Driver

9

1.2

12

2.0

21

1.6

 

 Other

7

0.6

6

0.8

13

1.0

 

The quantitative questionnaires included a brief section on socio-demographic background, followed by questions about perceptions of existing health warnings, as well as pictorial health warnings, the size of these warnings and key messages they contain. The guideline for interviewing policy makers composed of the socio-demographic characteristics, perception of existing health warnings and the future implementation of pictorial health warnings in Laos. To get the views of the participants on pictorial warnings, the research team showed them 10 mock packs adapted from different countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and other countries.

Data management, analysis, dissemination, and limitations

Data from all forms were entered into a standard relational database Epi.Info 6.0 and then transferred to SPSS 11.0. Data entry validity and integrity checks were performed by the data management team. Summary data results and quality assurance reports were forwarded to the field investigators. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean and SD, and some inferential statistics. Background information was run for univariate analysis. For comparing characteristics between smokers and non-smokers, categorical data were analyzed by using either Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact Test. Multiple logistic regression were performed to test the observed differences between smokers and non-smoker in -awareness of health warnings on the side and back of packages and -perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings as compared to text-only warnings. This was done in order to control for confounding factors. Socio-demographic variables (age, sex, education, occupation) were adjusted for all analyses.

The survey questions and interviews were conducted in Lao language and then, the verbatim quote from the in-depth interviews were translated into English. The field notes were fully transcribed and then analyzed by two researchers. A content analysis technique was used to analyze the data [16, 17]. The analysis encompassed a back and forth process including an initial descriptive phase of identifying the meaning units and assigning codes to these. Then, the coding was compared and grouped into categories. The core of the qualitative data analysis is aimed towards systematization to identify themes, categories and codes and possible explanations for these themes.

After data collection the findings were disseminated to the stakeholders, especially to the National Committee Control for Tobacco. The findings from this study were used to strengthen health warnings on cigarette packages.

Ethical requirements

Informed consent of respondents

Ethical clearance was obtained from the National Ethical Review Board for Research, Ministry of Health. Verbal Informed consent was obtained from all respondents who answered the questionnaire or participated in the focus group discussions and interviews. In the Lao context the custom and ethics committee regulation is verbal informed consent for studies of this nature.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

In-depth interview of the members of parliament

A total of 15 members of parliament were interviewed. Half of the participants were female and participants represented nearly all the provinces in Lao PDR, except Luangnamtha, Champassack and Khammouane. Age ranged between 42 and 62 years and a few held more than one position in their province. Regarding their smoking status, the majority of males smoked compared to the female participants (34 % vs 1 %).

Survey of smokers and Non-smokers – Lay people

The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Overall, 1360 respondents were recruited. The age ranged from 15 to 55 years with a mean of 32.4 and SD = 13.7. About one third of respondents were female; while the vast majority of smokers were males (29.8 % vs 70.2 %).

One third of respondents (33.6 %) had completed upper secondary school, 16.5 % finished lower secondary schools and 14.9 % had received bachelor degrees (see Table 1). Non-smokers had a higher level of education (p < .001).

One third of the respondents were students (29,9 %), 15.4 % were daily paid workers and 14.1 % were government officers. The occupation of respondents was associated with smoking status, and daily paid workers were found to have smoked more than those in other occupations (p < .001).

Smoking status

Table 2 illustrates smoking status by gender. Among the surveyed respondents, 44.6 % never smoked; 11.8 % were ex-smokers and 43.6 % were smokers with 25.4 % being daily smokers. There was a gender difference between smoking status with more daily smokers found among males compared to females (32.6 % versus 8.6 %, p < .001).
Table 2

Smoking status of respondents by gender

Variables

Male

Female

Total

P value

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

Smoking status

      

<.001

Never smoked

303

31.7

304

75.1

607

44.6

 

Ex-smoker

129

13.5

31

7.7

160

11.8

 

Occasional smoker

212

22.2

35

8.6

247

18.2

 

Daily smoker

311

32.6

35

8.6

346

25.4

 

Total

955

100

405

100

1360

100.0

 

Awareness/opinions of current health warnings

The study revealed that awareness of health messages on the front and back of cigarette package was quite low (Table 3). There was no statistical difference in awareness of the health messages between smokers and non smokers (19.2 % versus 18.1 %, p = .613). Awareness of health information on the side of cigarette packs was higher than awareness of warnings on the back and front of the packs. Smokers were more aware of the health warning on the side of the packs than non-smokers (84.5 % versus 51.8 %, p < .001). Awareness of warnings on the back of packages was the lowest of the three, and in all cases smokers were more conscious of warnings than non-smokers (14.7 % versus 9.9 %, p = .020).
Table 3

Perceptions towards current text-only health warnings

Variables

Non-smokers

Smokers

Total

P value

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

Awareness of health warning

Front of pack

      

.613

 Yes

139

18.1

114

19.2

253

18.6

 

 No

627

81.9

479

80.8

1106

81.4

 

Side of pack

      

<.001

 Yes

397

51.8

501

84.5

898

66.0

 

 No

370

48.2

92

15.5

462

34.0

 

Back of pack

      

.0200

 Yes

76

9.9

87

14.7

163

12.0

 

 No

690

57.8

506

85.3

1196

88.0

 

Overall, recall of information on the front and back of the pack of cigarettes tended to be lower for all subgroups than awareness of health warning on the side of the pack of cigarettes. There were statistically significant differences between the recall ability of health warnings on the side (84.5 % vs 51.8 %, p < .001) and back of pack (14.7 % vs 9.9 %, p < .001) among smokers and non smokers. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, awareness of health warnings on the side of the pack and back of pack remained statistically significant (Additional file 2: Table S1).

Key informants from the National Assembly found that the lettering in the packs was too small and that there was a lack of contrast with the white background. As such, the current health warnings were less noticeable than they should be. They suggested that the message should be produced in a style that complements the other features of the pack.

“The letters are too small, you can barely see them” (Male non-smoker, 52 years)

“The writing is too small to start with – no one reads it.” (Male smoker, 54 years)

“I saw the small letter in the side of the packs with one line. If you are not so interested, you won’t read it” (Male smoker, 62 years old)

“It is a small text, you can’t see it” (Female non-smoker, 46 years old)

The health message was perceived to be too general and not indicating the composition or ingredients of the cigarettes such as the nicotine and tar content. In addition, some participants also commented that the message was too short and did not explain the health effects of smoking.

The key informants felt that the current messages say nothing and had been unchanged for many years. The messages were not attractive and were the least memorable element of the pack; the warnings were printed on the side of the pack, so people barely noticed them.

“The current health message is not attractive to the smokers; however, some smokers even rarely read the health messages” (Female, 52 years old)

“The warning covered too small an area and is located by the side of the pack” (Male non-smoker, 52 years old)

Pertaining to the content of the messages, the current perception is that the present content was inadequate as it only has one sentence. Furthermore, the messages did not deal with specific diseases.

“The information is scarce, and the content of the message is not in-depth and not adequate” (Male smoker, 56 years old)

Concerning the effectiveness of the current health warnings, some considered warnings such as “Smoking is dangerous to your health” to be too general and thus would not encourage smokers to give up the habit:

“The current health warnings are too general and the letters are too small, not attractive and not prominent, so you can’t quit smoking”. (Male smoker, 50 years old)

However, many of the respondents agreed that the content of the health warning was credible.

“I think, the health warnings are credible because it is true and there are smokers getting some diseases” (Male smoker, 54 years old)

A few Members of Parliament mentioned that the messages were generally clear, short and the public likes simple and direct messages.

“It is simple and does not go around” (Male, 52 years old).

Perceived effect of health warnings on knowledge

Table 4 shows the effect of health messages on knowledge of smoking and its impact on health. Approximately 13.7 % of respondents, irrespective of their smoking status, claimed that the health warnings have not raised their awareness about the health risks at all while 46.7 % indicated that they thought about health risks “a lot”. Compared to non-smokers, smokers were more likely to be concerned about health risks (p < .001).
Table 4

Perceived effect of current text-only health warnings on thoughts and knowledge about smoking harms

 

Non-smoker

Smoker

Total

Variables

N

%

N

%

N

%

Health warnings make you think about the health risks (p < .001)

 Not at all

99

13.1

86

14.6

185

13.7

 A little

121

16.0

168

28.4

289

21.4

 Somewhat

142

18.8

103

17.4

245

18.2

 A lot

395

52.2

234

39.6

629

46.7

Inclusion of health warnings and health information on cigarette packs has improved your knowledge of the health effects of tobacco (p < .001)

 Not at all

70

9.2

82

13.9

152

11.3

 A little

110

14.5

145

24.5

255

18.9

 Somewhat

157

20.7

134

22.7

291

21.6

 A lot

422

55.6

230

38.9

652

48.3

About 48.3 % of respondents suggested that their knowledge about the health effects of tobacco had improved “a lot” as a result of the inclusion of health warnings and health information on cigarette packs. Compared to non-smokers, smokers were more inclined to suggest that their knowledge had improved. After controlling for potential confounders, this remained statistically significant (Additional file 2: Table S2).

Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings

In comparison with “text only”, alternatives of the graphic pictorial health warnings were generally more likely to stimulate thinking about the health risks of smoking (82.9 %), with non-smokers giving more thought about the health risks compared to smokers (p < .001) (Table 5).
Table 5

Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings as compared to text-only warnings

 

Non- Smoke

Smoker

Total

P-value

Effectiveness of pictorial health warning

767

593

  
 

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

a. In making you think of the health risk of smoking

669

87.3

458

77.2

1127

82.9

<.001

b. In conveying potential health effect of smoking effectively?

659

86.1

448

75.5

1107

81.5

<.001

c. In increasing and reinforcing awareness of the negative health effect of smoking?

629

83.0

450

76.1

1079

80.0

.008

d. In aiding memorability of the health effects?

631

82.5

442

74.5

1073

79.0

.001

e. In arousing fear of smoking

616

80.5

434

73.2

1050

77.3

.004

f. In encouraging smokers to quit?

419

54.8

334

58.2

763

56.3

.370

g. In encouraging smokers in general to think about their smoking habit?

546

71.5

394

66.8

940

69.4

.163

The pictorial health warnings more effectively conveyed the potential health effects (81.5 %); increasing and reinforcing awareness of the negative health effects of smoking (80 %); aiding memorability of the health effects (79 %); and arousing fear of smoking (77.3 %) with statistically significant differences between non-smokers and smokers (P < .001; P = .008 and P = .001 respectively). However, compared to “text only”, the pictorial health warnings were not effective in encouraging smokers to quit. The study revealed that only 56.3 % claimed that pictorial health warnings were more likely to encourage smokers to give up smoking; in addition, 69.4 % indicated that pictorial health warnings were more likely to encourage smokers to think about their smoking habits. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the smokers and non-smokers on the statements “encouraging to quit smoking” and “encouraging to think about their smoking habit” (p = .370 and p = .163 respectively) (Table 5). After controlling for potential confounders, this difference was statistically significant (Additional file 2: Table S3).

The qualitative findings also verified the quantitative research method. The pictorial health warnings were perceived to be more effective because smokers could see the pictures directly with messages, or even without messages. The graphic packs in particular tended to reinforce the decision of young nonsmokers to not consider or take up smoking.

“I think it’s excellent because on a normal cigarette pack all they have is writing text such as smoking kills you or smoking is danger for your health and people around you. They don’t have any pictures, they don’t tell you what it actually does to your body. I think if we get the picture of lung cancer or other pictures with severe health consequences from smoking such as throat cancer and so on. And the pictures are more attractive and more persuasive.” (Female non smoker, 51 years)

Perception of the implementation of pictorial health warnings

About 65 % of respondents suggested that health warnings on tobacco packs were very important and 30.5 % cited health warnings were quite important. Non- smokers were more likely to rate the health warnings on tobacco and cigarette packs as “very important”, when compared to smokers (69.1 % versus 59.8 %, p = .005). With regards to the perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings, 44 % pointed out that pictorial health warnings would be effective; on the other hand, 19.4 % noted that pictorial health warnings would be neutral (neither effective nor ineffective). There was no statistically significant difference between effective pictorial health warnings and smoking status (p = .742). Approximately 65.2 % strongly supported implementation of graphic health warnings on cigarette packs with non-smokers more so than smokers (71.3 % versus 57.3 %, p < .001).

Similarly, for the qualitative findings, all policy makers supported the implementation of pictorial health warnings because people’s fear will be raised. Pictorial health warnings may not only make people less likely to smoke but also increase public awareness of the health hazards of using tobacco products.

“I fully agree to implement the pictorial health warnings in our country because people will be more aware of the dangers of smoking; however, we need to explore more in-depth which of the health warnings and the pictorial that will be suitable for Laos.” (Male, 52 years old)

However, some policy makers had some concerns about the implementation of pictorial health warnings as the majority of rural people use rolling tobacco, which obviously does not include pictorial health warnings.

Regarding the perceived effect of pictorial health warnings on knowledge, 89.3 % stated that knowledge of the effect of smoking would be improved due to the implementation of the tobacco policy; while non-smokers would be more likely to claim that their knowledge on the health effect would be improved, as compared to smokers (p < .001).

In relation to the size of pictorial health warnings, 42.2 % stated that the size of pictorial health warnings should be 50 % of the display area to be more effective. It is interesting to note that smokers were less likely to agree to have greater size displays on the tobacco packs than non-smokers (p < .001). Similarly, most policy makers agreed that the pictorial health warnings should be 20 to 50 % of the display areas of the pack and on the front of the pack, so people can notice them directly.

“The size of health warning should be 50 % of the front pack because people who smoke will see immediately and the other side, it will be the key information of the harmful effect of smoking” (Male, aged 51 years)

Discussion

Awareness of current health warning with “text only”

Our study is a response to a request from a systematic review regarding “health warning messages on tobacco products”, namely to include studies from low-income countries [12]. This type of research context is important and it is unclear whether the impact of messages varies a lot between high- and low- to middle-income countries [12]. This study revealed interesting findings on the awareness of health warning messages on the side of packs of cigarettes, with smokers being more likely to be aware of the health warnings than non-smokers.

Awareness of health warnings on the front and back of packs and readership of the health warnings was low and recall of health warnings was also low. The position of health warning on the side of packs made them less likely to be noticed than if they were on the front, a finding that was similar to the survey by European tobacco control organizations [18].

The perceived effect of “text only” health warnings was low, as indicated by a lower association with awareness of health risks, perceived likelihood of improving knowledge on health effects, and quitting.

Overall, the health warnings with “text only” was associated with a perception of not having an impact and with the perception of not being effective in conveying the potential negative health consequences of smoking. The results from this study were consistent with findings from previous research comparing reactions to text-only warning labels in other countries [1921]. These authors also found that health knowledge is lower among smokers, even in highly educated countries; however, they would expect health knowledge to be substantially lower among the majority of the world’s smokers, particularly those living in lower and middle income countries. Thus, the effectiveness of health warning labels could address knowledge deficits by providing comprehensive health warnings to smokers without regular access to health information on the risks of smoking.

In regards to the effectiveness of current health warnings, only slightly higher than half of the respondents perceived that the health warnings with “text only” had some effectiveness. As the literature has suggested, warning labels with text-only did not have high effectiveness [22]. The study carried out by the European tobacco control organizations also showed that text-only health warnings are largely ignored by smokers because they are difficult to see and tend to blend in with the packing design [17]. Thus, the current health warning system has clearly failed to adequately inform people of the risks of smoking and needs to be changed.

The qualitative data from in-depth interviews of Members of Parliament also revealed that the current health warnings were perceived to be inadequate, less noticeable, less believable and provide less information than pictorial health warning. Thus, there is clearly the need to improve the format to make content more visually prominent, simulating, specific and persuasive. Most of the informants believed that the health warnings are outdated, do not include any new information and that the warnings have lost their novelty and noticeability. Similarly, the FCTC also claimed that to be effective, health warnings should be prominent enough to capture smoker’s’ attention and must break down the “wear-out” that results from habituation to the message. Thus the warning labels should be 50 % or more of the principal display areas, but not less than 30 % [23].

This study revealed that the policy makers suggested to have the size of health warnings to be 50 % to 100 % of the principle area of the cigarette package, which is consistent with the Framework of FCTC [14]. Given the exceptionally hazardous nature of tobacco and the failure of tobacco companies to adequately disclose risks, warnings should occupy at least as much area on tobacco product packaging as any artwork designed to make the package attractive. Recently, many countries have passed laws requiring that health messages comprise significant portions of the front and back of the package.

Moreover, the prevailing health warnings in Laos only covers 30 % of the packet and may not be impressive or useful enough to remind people of the hazards of smoking, and that “cigarettes are harmful not only to smokers but also to second-hand smokers,”. The Tobacco Control in Lao PDR aimed to improve health warnings in order to increase awareness of the harmful effects of smoking, and to reduce the rate of smoking among children. The health warnings on tobacco products have the following functions: to provide information about the health risks of smoking, to provide information on the benefits of quitting, to motivate people to quit, to deter people from starting to smoke or from becoming habitual users and to help those who have decided to quit to do so. However, these health warnings have not been implemented in Lao PDR yet.

Effectiveness of pictorial health warnings

The study revealed that the vast majority of respondents believed in the effectiveness of pictorial health warnings. In comparison with the “text only” warnings the pictorial health warnings were generally thought to be more likely to convey potential health effects of smoking more effectively, to increase and reinforce awareness of the negative health effects of smoking, to aid memorability of the health effects, to encourage smokers to quit and to think about their smoking habits. All evidence from previous studies suggested that graphic warnings were (i) a prominent source of health information second only to television in many jurisdictions; (ii) more likely to be noticed and discussed than text warnings, (iii) associated with greater health knowledge, (iv) associated with increased cessation behavior, and (v) that these warnings enjoy high effectiveness and support from smokers themselves [21, 22]. These authors also found that the graphic will contribute to an increase in the unacceptability of smoking for both health and social reasons. In addition, the graphics will increase anxiety and anger and will elicit more emotional reaction [22].

This present study was consistent with previous studies indicating that prominent warning labels and more comprehensive health messages with graphic elements are more likely to both encourage smokers to forego smoking than text-only warning labels and to be noticed and cited as effective by smokers [21, 22, 24]. Previous surveys of smokers have been carried out in the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom and Australia with widely different health warnings ranging from large graphic depictions of diseases in Canada to small text-only warnings in the USA. Smokers in our study were less likely to perceive the effect of pictorial health warnings in conveying the potential heath risks. This increases and reinforces awareness of the negative health effect of smoking. Smokers in Canada were the most likely to report thinking about the health risks of smoking, to stop having cigarettes and to think about quitting; however, smokers in the US reported the lowest levels of effectiveness for almost all measured items [21]. Smokers in countries where a warning depicts a particular health hazard of smoking are much more likely to know about the health hazards and smokers who reported noticing warnings were 1.5 to 3 times more likely to believe each health hazard [19].

Thus, the smokers in our study did not pay any attention to the current health warnings. The pictorial warnings are more likely to have impact, to attract attention, be confrontational to smokers and to be difficult to ignore. The study showed that pictorial health warnings have more impact on knowledge of the risk of smoking, and on quitting and help to convey potential health effects of smoking more effectively through pictures than words. The rationale for the potentially greater effectiveness of graphic health warnings when compared to text only, is that “a picture is worth a thousand words” and evokes an emotional response [9] raising fear and social stigma among smokers to increase their awareness and attract their attention.

Perspective on the implementation of pictorial health warnings

Most policymakers strongly supported implementation of graphic health warnings on cigarette packs. The policymakers have a strong moral obligation to inform consumers about the risks of smoking. The primary intent of pictorial warnings is not to scare, but to inform smokers about the full range, likelihood, and severity of smoking-related diseases.

In contrast, some policymakers raised concerns about the implementation of pictorial health warnings within the Lao cultural context because the majority of rural people used rolling tobacco, thus they might not have access to health warning images. Parallel to this, there should be a focus on more effective interventions and policies such as dissemination of health information through various channels such as radio, posters, leaflets, health education in the community; and the integrating of health information into the school curriculum.

Conclusion

The study findings suggest that in Lao PDR the current tobacco package warnings are too small, their content is inadequate to convey health risks, and their design is such that they are hidden in the side of the packages. These findings support the FCTC’s requirements for introducing pictorial warning labels in Lao PDR. Furthermore, the awareness of Members of Parliament about tobacco control measures holds promise at the highest political level.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The study was supported with funding from the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA). The funding body has no any role in the study or manuscript preparation.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, Vientiane, Lao PDR
(2)
Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
(3)
Faculty of Postgraduate Studies and Research University of Sciences Vientiane, Vientiane, Lao PDR

References

  1. Sarntisart, I, Oupaseuth, S, Senesavath, O, Phetsavong, S. Tax Policies for Tobacco Industry in Lao PDR. A Research Report Submitted to the Southeast Asian Tobacco Alliance, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Review of Health Warnings on Tobacco Products in Australia. Companion document Evaluation of the Health Warnings and Explanatory Health Messages on Tobacco Products Executive Summary. Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Australia; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on tobacco Control. Geneva: Switzerland, 2003. [http://apps.who.int/tobacco/framework/] (Accessed 19 October 2015)
  4. Ministry of Health. Regulation on health warnings printed on cigarette packs and cartons. No 660/MOH dated 23th November, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. World Health Organization. Warn about the dangers of tobacco: Health warning labels on cigarette packages, 2011. [http://apps.who.int/tobacco/framework/en].
  6. Government of Lao PDR. Law on Tobacco Control. National Assembly, No 07 /NA, Vientiane Capital, date 26 November 2009.Google Scholar
  7. Hammond D. Tobacco Labelling Resource. Waterloo. Available at [http://www.tobaccolabels.org] (Accessed 18 October 2015).
  8. Borland R, Hill D. Initial impact of the new Australian tobacco health warning on knowledge and beliefs. Tob Control. 1997;6:317–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Global Adult Tobacco Survey Collaborative Group. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS): Country Report: Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Hammond D, McDonald P, Fong G, Brown KS, Cameron R. The impact of cigarette warning labels and smoke-free bylaws on smoking cessation: evidence from former smokers. Can J Public Health. 2004;95(3):201–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Yong HH, et al. Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years. Tob Control. 2009;18:358–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):327–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Yong HH, Fong GT, Driezen P, Borland R, Quah AC, Sirirassamee B, et al. Adult smokers’ reactions to pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packs in Thailand and moderating effects of type of cigarette smoked: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Southeast Asia Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(8):1339–47.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Framework Convention Alliance (FCA). Packaging & Labelling. Recommended Text. (Briefing Paper for INB-3, 2001). Washington DC: Framework Convention Alliance; 2001 [http://fctc.org/x/iwg_cops/INB3/INB3brief_label.pdf].Google Scholar
  15. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rded.). Newbury Park: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R. Evaluating qualitative research. Evidence Based Health Policy Manag. 1996;1(4):83–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Action on Smoking and Health. Research findings on health warnings on tobacco products. London Updated August 2000. [http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_601.pdf] Source: CNCT, FARES, ASH: Tobacco product warnings, Paris, Brussels, London, 1998. Link: [http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/981027.html].
  19. Hammond D, Fong GT, Mcdonald PW, Brown KS K, Cameron R. Showing leads to doing: graphic cigarette warning labels are an effective public health policy. Eur J Pub Health. 2006;16:223–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, Borland R, Cummings KM. Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15 Suppl 3:iii19–25. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.012294.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings M, McNeill A, Driezen P. Communicating risk to smokers: the impact of health warnings on cigarette packages. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(3):202–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott and Shanahan Research. Evaluation of the Health Warnings and Explanatory Health Messages on Tobacco Products. Prepared for Tobacco and Alcohol Strategies Section Department of Health and Aged Care. Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care Canberra; 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Thraser JF, Hammond D, Fong GT, Arillo-Santillán E. Smokers’ reactions to cigarette package warnings with graphic imagery and with only text: a comparison between Mexico and Canada. Salud Publica Mex. 2007;49:S233–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Les Etudes de marche Createc: Effectiveness of Health Warning Messages on Cigarette Packages in Informing Less Literate Smokers: Final Report. (Ottawa: Communication Canada, 2003) [http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/research.htm].

Copyright

© Sychareun et al. 2015

Advertisement