![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long-term benefit of increasing the prominence of a
quitline number on cigarette packaging: 3 years of Quitline call
data
In 2008 the law required tobacco packaging in New Zealand to
include pictorial health warnings (PHWs) and the national Quitline
number.1 Previously, text-only health warnings
provided a telephone number, but did not explicitly link this to the
“Quitline”. Research indicated that New Zealand smokers became more
aware of the Quitline number on packs since PHWs were
introduced,2,3 and there was an immediate
increase in the proportion of new callers who registered with the Quitline
following the introduction of PHWs.4 We
investigated whether Quitline callers’ use of packaging to source the
Quitline number continued beyond the initial introduction of PHWs.
Methods—The national free-phone
Quitline service in New Zealand routinely collects data on where new callers
sourced the Quitline number (i.e., a standardised question asked of all new
callers). The Quitline service provided us with data on the proportion of new
callers who reported obtaining the Quitline number from cigarettes packaging
before and after the introduction of PHWs (i.e. for the three-year period March
2007 to February 2010). These data were compared to the proportion of callers
who cited television advertising as the source of this number (which was the
major source at the start of the study period). We reviewed monthly
“target audience rating points” (TARPs) data on the reach and
frequency of television advertising for smoking cessation advertisements (most
of them showed the Quitline number).
Results and discussion—During the
12-month pre-PHWs period (March 2007 to February 2008), 7.5% and 34.9% of new
callers (out of n=19,558 total callers), cited tobacco packaging and television
advertising respectively as their source for the Quitline number (Figure 1).
However, in the first full year of the new PHWs (March 2008 to February 2009),
the proportions reporting tobacco packaging as the source increased to 26.4% and
television advertising declined to 27.1% (out of n=20,152 total callers). The
same pattern was still evident in the subsequent 12-month period at 22.9% and
23.3% respectively (n=18,309 for the period March 2009 to February 2010).
The proportions of Māori and Pacific callers citing
tobacco packaging were similar to that for the overall caller population (i.e.,
for the last of the three time periods: 21.3% for Māori, 25.9% for Pacific
and 23.2% for European/Other callers).
Figure 1. Trends in the two major sources of
the Quitline number for smokers calling the New Zealand Quitline the first time
(March 2007 to February 2010) showing the introduction point for new pictorial
health warnings (i.e., with the Quitline number more clearly
shown)
![]() * Target audience rating points (TARPs) are a measure
of the audience exposure to televised smoking cessation advertisements (most of
them showed the Quitline number).
These findings suggest that promoting the Quitline number
more clearly on tobacco packaging increases its long-term salience for smokers
of different ethnic groups in New Zealand. In terms of stimulating quitline
calls, these New Zealand data are consistent with the experience in
Australia,5
Brazil,6 and
Singapore,7 where such calls also increased
after PHWs featured a quitline number. Similar experiences have also been
reported when new text-warnings featured a quitline number in the
Netherlands8 and the United
Kingdom.9
Interestingly, the results observed in New Zealand occurred
despite the relatively small size of both the Quitline numbers on the packaging
i.e. the one in the text and the one superimposed on the picture (see
photographs of the warnings10 and a comparison
with the larger quitline number on Australian
packs2).
Furthermore, the current PHWs arguably suffer from visual
clutter and other suboptimal design features. Improving the warning design,
including increasing the size of the front-of-pack PHW and placing the Quitline
number on the front of tobacco packages, could further facilitate smokers’
use of this zero-cost means of promoting cessation. Such steps could be taken
when New Zealand next upgrades its PHWs so that they better match
state-of-the-art developments in terms of size, impact and design simplicity
(e.g. as per recent PHWs from Brazil11).
Nick Wilson1*, Judy
Li1,2, Janet
Hoek3, Richard
Edwards1, Jo
Peace1
1Department of Public
Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
2Health Sponsorship
Council, Wellington, New Zealand
3Department of Marketing,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Competing interests: Although we do
not consider it a competing interest, for the sake of full transparency we note
that one of us (JL), previously worked as a researcher for the organisation
running the Quitline (The Quit Group). However, this is a government-funded
non-profit organisation.
Acknowledgements: We thank The Quit
Group (who run the Quitline on contract to the Ministry of Health) for the data.
Funding support was from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (grant
06/453 for the ITC Project).
References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |