Relative Importance of Different Attributes of Graphic Health Warnings on Tobacco Packages in Viet Nam

  • Published : 2016.04.14


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.


  1. Chaloupka FJ (2000). The Economics of Smoking. Handbook Health Economics, 1, 1539-627.
  2. Disease IUATaL (2009). Tobacco packaging and labelling: Technical Guide, 7.
  3. Durkin S, Brennan E, Coomber K, et al (2015). Short-term changes in quitting-related cognitions and behaviours after the implementation of plain packaging with larger health warnings: findings from a national cohort study with Australian adult smokers. Tob Control, 24, 26-32.
  4. Elliott and Shanahan Research (2008). Literature review: evaluation of the effectiveness of the graphic health warnings on tobacco product packaging 2008. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 34-5.
  5. Fong GT, Hitchman SC (2009). The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings. Bull WHO, 87, 640-3.
  6. Hammond D (2008). Health warnings on tobacco packageages: Summary of evidence and legal challenges. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Report.
  7. Hammond D (2011a). Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control, 20, 327-37.
  8. Hammond D (2011b). Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control., 20, 327-37.
  9. Hammond D FG, McNeill A, Borland R, Cummings KM (2006). Effectiveness of graphic health warnings in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control, 15, 19-25.
  10. Hammond D (2009). Tobacco labelling & packaging toolkit: a guide to FCTC Article 11. Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre.
  11. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005). Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Kessels LT RR, Jansma BM (2010). Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening health information. Health Psychol, 29, 346-54.
  13. Kotnowski K, Fong GT, Gallopel-Morvan K, et al (2015). The impact of cigarette packaging design among young females in canada: findings from a discrete choice experiment. Nicotine Tob Res, ntv114. Epub 2015/05/28.
  14. Li L, Borland R, Yong H, et al (2015). Longer term impact of cigarette package warnings in Australia compared with the United Kingdom and Canada. Health Educ Res, 30, 67-80.
  15. Mead EL, Cohen JE, Kennedy CE, et al (2015). The role of theory-driven graphic warning labels in motivation to quit: a qualitative study on perceptions from low-income, urban smokers. BMC Public Health, 15, 92.
  16. Moodie C MA, Hastings G (2013). Adolescents' response to pictorial warnings on the reverse panel of cigarette packs: A repeat cross-sectional study. Tob Control, 24, e93-e7.
  17. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, et al (2015). Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control, (Epub ahead of print).
  18. O’Hegarty M, Nelson DE, Mowery P, Gable JM, Wortley P (2006). Reactions of young adult smokers to warning labels on cigarette package. Am J Prev Med, 30, 467-73.
  19. Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health, 16, 3-13.
  20. Shanahan P (2009). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Graphic Health Warnings on Tobacco Product Packaging 2008-Executive Summary,. Australian Department of Health and Ageing.
  21. Slade J (1997). The pack as advertisement. Tob Control, 6, 169-70.
  22. Thrasher JF, Villalobos V, Szklo A, et al (2010). Assessing the impact of cigarette package health warning labels: a cross-country comparison in Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. Salud Publica Mex, 52, 206-15.
  23. TNS Qual (2012). Tobacco packageaging health warning labels.
  24. Train K (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Wakefield M, Durkin S, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Borland R (2012). Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction, 107, 1159-67.
  26. Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK, et al (2002). The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tob Control, 11, 73-80.
  27. Wardle H, Lee L, Hall J, et al (2010). Evaluating the impact of picture health warnings on cigarette packets. Public health research consortium short report, Department of Health Policy Research programme, London, UK.