Abstract
Graphic health warnings (GHW) on tobacco packages have proven to be effective in increasing quit attempts among smokers and reducing initial smoking among adolescents. This research aimed to examine the relative importance of different attributes of graphic health warnings on tobacco packages in Viet Nam. A discrete choice experimental (DCE) design was applied with a conditional logit model. In addition, a ranking method was used to list from the least to the most dreadful GHW labels. With the results from DCE model, graphic type was shown to be the most important attribute, followed by cost and coverage area of GHW. The least important attribute was position of the GHW. Among 5 graphic types (internal lung cancer image, external damaged teeth, abstract image, human suffering image and text), the image of lung cancer was found to have the strongest influence on both smokers and non-smokers. With ranking method, the image of throat cancer and heart diseases were considered the most dreadful images. GHWs should be designed with these attributes in mind, to maximise influence on purchase among both smokers and non-smokers.
Highlights
Graphic health warning (GHW) on tobacco package have been introduced and initially implemented in Canada since 2001 with setting coverage of 50% of the display area front and back
Graphic health warnings (GHW) on tobacco packages have proven to be effective in increasing quit attempts among smokers and reducing initial smoking among adolescents
This research aimed to examine the relative importance of different attributes of graphic health warnings on tobacco packages in Viet Nam
Summary
Graphic health warning (GHW) on tobacco package have been introduced and initially implemented in Canada since 2001 with setting coverage of 50% of the display area front and back. Many researches have been conducted to examine the effects of GHW label intervention on the tobacco control attempt and process. Most studies focus on examining the impacts of specific graphic health warnings in specific contexts such as intention to quit, quitting attempts, preventing initial smoking, or deterring to buy tobacco as a gift; but very few studies evaluate the effect of different GHW designs and tobacco package on people’s preference and choice to purchase (Kotnowski et al, 2015; Noar et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
