DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Potential Impact of Graphic Health Warnings on Cigarette Packages in Reducing Cigarette Demand and Smoking-Related Deaths in Vietnam

  • Hoang, Van Minh (Hanoi School of Public Health) ;
  • Le, Hong Chung (Hanoi School of Public Health) ;
  • Kim, Bao Giang (Hanoi Medical University) ;
  • Duong, Minh Duc (Hanoi School of Public Health) ;
  • Nguyen, Duc Hinh (Hanoi Medical University) ;
  • Vu, Quynh Mai (Hanoi School of Public Health) ;
  • Nguyen, Manh Cuong (Ministry of Health) ;
  • Pham, Duc Manh (Ministry of Health) ;
  • Ha, Anh Duc (Ministry of Health) ;
  • Yang, Jui-Chen (RTI Health Solutions)
  • Published : 2016.04.14

Abstract

Two years after implementation of the graphic health warning intervention in Vietnam, it is very important to evaluate the intervention's potential impact. The objective of this paper was to predict effects of graphic health warnings on cigarette packages, particularly in reducing cigarette demand and smoking-associated deaths in Vietnam. In this study, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) method was used to evaluate the potential impact of graphic tobacco health warnings on smoking demand. To predict the impact of GHWs on reducing premature deaths associated with smoking, we constructed different static models. We adapted the method developed by University of Toronto, Canada and found that GHWs had statistically significant impact on reducing cigarette demand (up to 10.1% through images of lung damage), resulting in an overall decrease of smoking prevalence in Vietnam. We also found that between 428,417- 646,098 premature deaths would be prevented as a result of the GHW intervention. The potential impact of the GHW labels on reducing premature smoking-associated deaths in Vietnam were shown to be stronger among lower socio-economic groups.

Keywords

Graphic health warnings;impact;cigarette demand;mortality;Vietnam

References

  1. O'Hegarty M, Nelson DE, Mowery P, Gable JG, Wortley P (2006). Reactions of young adult smokers to warning labels on cigarette packages. Am J Prev Med.
  2. Ministry of Health, Vinacosh (2011). Global Tobacco Use Survey (GATS) Vietnam 2010.
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
  4. Shanahan PED (2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness of graphic health warnings on tobacco product packaging 2008- executive summary,. australian department of health and ageing.
  5. Thrasher JF, Rousu MC, Hammond D, et al (2011). Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and "plain" cigarette packaging: evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy, 102, 41-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.06.003
  6. Asian Development Bank (2013). Tobacco Taxes: A Win-Win Measure for Fiscal Space and Health.
  7. Azagba S, Sharaf MF (2013). The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: evidence from the Canadian experience. Nicotine Tob Res, 15, 708-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts194
  8. Borland R YH, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D (2009). How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: findings from the ITC Four-Country survey. Addiction, 104, 669-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02508.x
  9. Hammond D (2011). Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control, 20, 327-37. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.037630
  10. Hammond D, Thrasher J, Reid JL, et al (2012). Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings among Mexican youth and adults: a population-level intervention with potential to reduce tobacco-related inequities. Cancer Causes Control, 23, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-012-9902-4
  11. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Huang J, Chaloupka FJ, Fong GT (2014). Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis. Tob Control, 23, 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050479
  13. Cantrell J, Thrasher JF, Nagler RH, et al (2013). Impact of Tobacco-Related Health Warning Labels across Socioeconomic, Race and Ethnic Groups: Results from a Randomized Web-Based Experiment. PLoS One.
  14. Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B (2009). How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan, 24, 151-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn047
  15. Mays D, Niaura RS, Evans WD, et al (2015). Cigarette packaging and health warnings: the impact of plain packaging and message framing on young smokers. Tob Control, 24, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051234
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1438-6