IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i2p282-d130527.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Cessation Messages for Cigarette Package Inserts: Findings from a Best/Worst Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • James F. Thrasher

    (Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Farahnaz Islam

    (Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Rachel E. Davis

    (Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Lucy Popova

    (Division of Health Promotion and Behavior, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA)

  • Victoria Lambert

    (Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Yoo Jin Cho

    (Department of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Ramzi G. Salloum

    (Department of Health Outcomes & Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (Institute for Choice and School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia)

  • David Hammond

    (School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada)

Abstract

This study assessed smokers’ responses to different smoking cessation topics and imagery for cigarette package inserts. Adult smokers from Canada ( n = 1000) participated in three discrete choice experiments (DCEs): DCE 1 assessed five cessation benefit topics and five imagery types; DCE 2 assessed five messages with tips to improve cessation success and five imagery types; DCE 3 assessed four reproductive health benefits of cessation topics and four imagery types. In each DCE, participants evaluated four or five sets of four inserts, selecting the most and least motivating (DCEs 1 & 3) or helpful (DCE 2) for quitting. Linear mixed models regressed choices on insert and smoker characteristics. For DCE 1, the most motivating messages involved novel disease topics and imagery of younger women. For DCE 2, topics of social support, stress reduction and nicotine replacement therapy were selected as most helpful, with no differences by imagery type. For DCE 3, imagery influenced choices more than topic, with imagery of a family or a mom and baby selected as most motivating. Statistically significant interactions for all three experiments indicated that the influence of imagery type on choices depended on the message topic. Messages to promote smoking cessation through cigarette pack inserts should consider specific combinations of message topic and imagery.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. Thrasher & Farahnaz Islam & Rachel E. Davis & Lucy Popova & Victoria Lambert & Yoo Jin Cho & Ramzi G. Salloum & Jordan Louviere & David Hammond, 2018. "Testing Cessation Messages for Cigarette Package Inserts: Findings from a Best/Worst Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:282-:d:130527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/282/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/282/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Thrasher, James F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Hammond, David & Navarro, Ashley & Corrigan, Jay R., 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, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 41-48, September.
    3. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    4. Cho, Yoo Jin & Thrasher, James F. & Yong, Hua-Hie & Szklo, André Salem & O'Connor, Richard J. & Bansal-Travers, Maansi & Hammond, David & Fong, Geoffrey T. & Hardin, James & Borland, Ron, 2018. "Path analysis of warning label effects on negative emotions and quit attempts: A longitudinal study of smokers in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 226-234.
    5. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    6. Niederdeppe, J. & Fiore, M.C. & Baker, T.B. & Smith, S.S., 2008. "Smoking-cessation media campaigns and their effectiveness among socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged populations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(5), pages 916-924.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    8. Abigail T Evans & Ellen Peters & Andrew A Strasser & Lydia F Emery & Kaitlin M Sheerin & Daniel Romer, 2015. "Graphic Warning Labels Elicit Affective and Thoughtful Responses from Smokers: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Noar, Seth M. & Francis, Diane B. & Bridges, Christy & Sontag, Jennah M. & Ribisl, Kurt M. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 118-129.
    10. Durkin, S.J. & Biener, L. & Wakefield, M.A., 2009. "Effects of different types of antismoking ads on reducing disparities in smoking cessation among socioeconomic subgroups," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2217-2223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gera E. Nagelhout & Lucy Popova & Mirte A. G. Kuipers, 2018. "Why Are New Tobacco Control Interventions Needed?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-3, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    4. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    5. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    6. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    7. Jennifer Cantrell & Donna M Vallone & James F Thrasher & Rebekah H Nagler & Shari P Feirman & Larry R Muenz & David Y He & Kasisomayajula Viswanath, 2013. "Impact of Tobacco-Related Health Warning Labels across Socioeconomic, Race and Ethnic Groups: Results from a Randomized Web-Based Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    8. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    10. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    11. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    14. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. Spinks, Jean & Mortimer, Duncan, 2015. "The effect of traffic lights and regulatory statements on the choice between complementary and conventional medicines in Australia: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 257-265.
    18. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    19. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.
    20. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:282-:d:130527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.