Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun 1;94(2):416-442.
doi: 10.1177/1077699016674188. Epub 2016 Oct 28.

Effects of Strengthening Cigarette Pack Warnings on Attention and Message Processing: A Systematic Review

Seth M Noar  1 , Diane B Francis  1 , Christy Bridges  1 , Jennah M Sontag  1 , Noel T Brewer  1 , Kurt M Ribisl  1
Affiliations

Effects of Strengthening Cigarette Pack Warnings on Attention and Message Processing: A Systematic Review

Seth M Noar et al. Journal Mass Commun Q. .

Abstract

The current study sought to examine the impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings on attention, message processing, and perceived effectiveness, through a systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. The review included 22 studies (N = 81,824 participants). Strengthened warnings increased attention to warnings, recall of warnings, and thinking about the health risks of smoking. Strengthened warnings also increased several perceived effectiveness outcomes, including perceptions that warnings reduce smoking and motivate quitting. Strengthened cigarette pack warnings achieve their goal of attracting attention and enhancing motivation to act. Strengthening warning policies should be a priority for tobacco control globally.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram showing the study screening process.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Message impact framework showing outcomes assessed in the set of studies.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Attention to warnings before and after implementation of strengthened warnings.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Cognitive elaboration before and after implementation of strengthened warnings.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Perceived effectiveness—Cognitive elaboration before and after implementation of strengthened warnings.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Perceived effectiveness—Foregoing before and after implementation of strengthened warnings.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abascal W., Esteves E., Goja B., Gonzalez Mora, F., Lorenzo A., Sica A., . . . Harris J. E. (2012). Tobacco control campaign in Uruguay: A population-based trend analysis. The Lancet, 380, 1575-1582. - PubMed
    1. *Agar T., Craig L., Fong G., Quah A. C. (2014). Tobacco health warnings in China: Evidence of effectiveness and implications for action. Manila, Philippines: World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific.
    1. Atkin C. K., Freimuth V. (2013). Guidelines for formative evaluation research in campaign design. In Rice R. E., Atkin C. K. (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (Vol. 4, pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    1. Bigsby E., Cappella J. N., Seitz H. H. (2013). Efficiently and effectively evaluating public service announcements: Additional evidence for the utility of perceived effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 80, 1-23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. *Borland R. (1997). Tobacco health warnings and smoking-related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction, 92, 1427-1435. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources