Cited by 567Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyBehavioral Health and Interventions

Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

Open access
Hammond, D, Fong, G T, McNeill, A, Borland, R, Cummings, K M·2006·Tobacco Control

Abstract

Background:Health warnings on cigarette packages are among the most common means of communicating the health risks of smoking. However, few studies have evaluated the impact of package warnings on consumer knowledge about tobacco risks. Objective:The aim of the current study was to use nationally representative samples of adult smokers from the United States (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada (CAN), and Australia (AUS) from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (ITC-4) to examine variations in smokers’ knowledge about tobacco risks and the impact of package warnings. Methods:A telephone survey was conducted with 9058 adult smokers from the following countries: USA (n = 2138), UK (n = 2401), CAN (n = 2214) and AUS (n = 2305). Respondents were asked to state whether they believed smoking caused heart disease, stroke, impotence, lung cancer in smokers, and lung cancer in non-smokers. Respondents were also asked whether the following chemicals are found in cigarette smoke: cyanide, arsenic and carbon monoxide. Findings:Smokers in the four countries exhibited significant gaps in their knowledge of the risks of smoking. Smokers who noticed the warnings were significantly more likely to endorse health risks, including lung cancer and heart disease. In each instance where labelling policies differed between countries, smokers living in countries with government mandated warnings reported greater health knowledge. For example, in Canada, where package warnings include information about the risks of impotence, smokers were 2.68 (2.41–2.97) times more likely to agree that smoking causes impotence compared to smokers from the other three countries. Conclusion:Smokers are not fully informed about the risks of smoking. Warnings that are graphic, larger, and more comprehensive in content are more effective in communicating the health risks of smoking.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/tc.2005.012294

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, and the USA, achieved sizeable declines in smoking prevalence well before FCTC adoption.

    “many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, and the USA, among others, achieved sizeable declines in smoking prevalence well before FCTC adoption.15, 56, 57, 58”

    From Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (2017) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (page unavailable) compare smokers’ knowledge and intentions to quit across four countries, not changes in smoking prevalence. The Conclusion (page unavailable) discusses warning labels and the FCTC, but does not report pre-FCTC prevalence trends. Searches for declines in smoking prevalence and for Brazil and South Korea found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An international survey including adult smokers from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia demonstrated that smokers who notice the warnings were more likely to endorse health risks and that knowledge of health risks was greater in countries with more mandated government warnings.

    “An international survey including adult smokers from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia demonstrated that smokers who notice the warnings were more likely to endorse health risks and that knowledge of health risks was greater in countries with more mandated government warnings.140”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., McNeill, A., Borland, R., & Cummings, K. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Cancer Council Victoria (AU)
  • Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Hammond, D
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-06
Volume
15
Issue
suppl 3
Pages
iii19-iii25
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
OpenAlex
W2127885482
Cited by
567
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 28
FWCI
14.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (P50 CA111236, 014578, C312/A3726, 265903, R01 CA 100362, 57897, 045734)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (C312/A3726, R01 CA 100362, 014578, 265903, 045734, P50 CA111236, 57897)
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (014578, 045734, 57897, P50 CA111236, 265903, C312/A3726, R01 CA 100362)
  • National Cancer Institute (C312/A3726, 045734, 57897, 265903, P50CA111236, R01CA100362, 014578)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
cigarette warning labels, smokers, health risk communication, lung cancer, heart disease, erectile dysfunction, passive smoking, cross-national comparison
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Product Labeling, Smoke, Smoking, Nicotiana, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review