Socioeconomic Differences in the Effectiveness of the Removal of the “Light” Descriptor on Cigarette Packs: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Thailand Survey
2011

Impact of Removing 'Light' Labels on Cigarette Packs in Thailand

Sample size: 2352 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Siahpush Mohammad, Borland Ron, Fong Geoffrey T., Elton-Marshall Tara, Yong Hua-Hie, Holumyong Charamporn

Primary Institution: University of Nebraska Medical Center

Hypothesis

Did the removal of 'light' descriptors from cigarette packs in Thailand change smokers' beliefs about the harm of these cigarettes, and did this change vary by socioeconomic status?

Conclusion

The removal of 'light' descriptors from cigarette packs led to a decline in the belief that 'light' cigarettes are less harmful, especially among lower-income and lower-education smokers.

Supporting Evidence

  • The belief that 'light' cigarettes are less harmful declined significantly after the ban.
  • Lower income and education groups showed a steeper decline in the belief that 'light' cigarettes are less harmful.
  • The study used data from a nationally representative cohort of adult smokers in Thailand.

Takeaway

When Thailand stopped using 'light' labels on cigarette packs, many smokers started to believe that these cigarettes are just as harmful as regular ones, especially those with less money or education.

Methodology

Data were collected from waves 2, 3, and 4 of the ITC Thailand Survey, which involved a stratified multi-stage sampling of adult smokers.

Potential Biases

Potential bias from the tobacco industry's marketing strategies and the lack of health education campaigns reinforcing the harms of 'light' cigarettes.

Limitations

Unmeasured confounders may have influenced the observed decline in beliefs about 'light' cigarettes, and the impact of these confounders could differ by socioeconomic position.

Participant Demographics

92.51% male, age range 18-86, with 44.15% living in urban areas; income levels were 17.4% low, 51.0% medium, and 31.6% high; education levels were 64.8% low, 25.7% medium, and 9.5% high.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 2.91–3.21

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.3390/ijerph8062170

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication