Cited by 37Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPublic Health Policies and Education

Effect of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and Voluntary Industry Health Warning Labels on Passage of Mandated Cigarette Warning Labels From 1965 to 2012: Transition Probability and Event History Analyses

Open access
Sanders-Jackson, Ashley N., Song, Anna V., Hiilamo, Heikki, Glantz, Stanton A.·2013·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objectives. We quantified the pattern and passage rate of cigarette package health warning labels (HWLs), including the effect of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and HWLs voluntarily implemented by tobacco companies. Methods. We used transition probability matrices to describe the pattern of HWL passage and change rate in 4 periods. We used event history analysis to estimate the effect of the FCTC on adoption and to compare that effect between countries with voluntary and mandatory HWLs. Results. The number of HWLs passed during each period accelerated, from a transition rate among countries that changed from 2.42 per year in 1965–1977 to 6.71 in 1977–1984, 8.42 in 1984–2003, and 22.33 in 2003–2012. The FCTC significantly accelerated passage of FCTC-compliant HWLs for countries with initially mandatory policies with a hazard of 1.27 per year (95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.45), but only marginally increased the hazard for countries that had an industry voluntary HWL of 1.68 per year (95% confidence interval = 0.95, 2.97). Conclusions. Passage of HWLs is accelerating, and the FCTC is associated with further acceleration. Industry voluntary HWLs slowed mandated HWLs.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.2013.301324

Cites

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [1]Hiilamo H Crosbie E Glantz S The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion Tob Control 2012 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050541 PMC3725195 23092884 · DOI
  2. [2]Hammond D Fong GT McDonald PW Cameron R Brown KS Impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking behaviour Tob Control 2003 12 4 391 14660774 PMC1747800
  3. [3]Thrasher JF Arillo-Santillán E Villalobos V Pérez-Hernández R Hammond D Carter J Can pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages address smoking-related health disparities? Field experiments in Mexico to assess pictorial warning label content Cancer Causes Control 2012 12 1 12 PMC3339765 22350859
  4. [4]Borland R Yong H Cummings K Hyland A Anderson S Fong G Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey Tob Control 2006 15 suppl 3 iii42 iii50 16754946 PMC2593064
  5. [5]Fong GT Hammond D Hitchman SC The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2009 87 8 640 3 19705020 PMC2733253
  6. [9]Sharma LL Teret SP Brownell KD The food industry and self-regulation: standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures Am J Public Health 2010 100 2 240 6 20019306 PMC2804645
  7. [10]Wipfli HL Fujimoto K Valente TW Global tobacco control diffusion: the case of the framework convention on tobacco control Am J Public Health 2010 100 7 1260 6 20466967 PMC2882412
  8. [11]Wipfli H Huang G Power of the process: Evaluating the impact of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control negotiations Health Policy 2011 100 2–3 107 15 20851492
  9. [12]Sebrié EM Schoj V Glantz SA Smoke free environments in Latin America: on the road to real change? Prev Control 2008 3 1 21 35 19578527 PMC2705163
  10. [13]Crosbie E Sebrié EM Glantz SA Tobacco industry success in Costa Rica: the importance of FCTC article 5.3 Salud Pública de México 2012 54 1 28 38 22286826 PMC3296364
  11. [14]Dearlove J Bialous S Glantz SA Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places Tob Control 2002 11 2 94 104 12034999 PMC1763854
  12. [15]Samet J Wipfli H Perez-Padilla R Yach D Public health: Mexico and the tobacco industry: doing the wrong thing for the right reason? BMJ 2006 332 7537 353 4 16470060 PMC1363920
  13. [16]Mamudu HM Hammond R Glantz SA Project Cerberus: tobacco industry strategy to create an alternative to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Am J Public Health 2008 98 9 1630 42 18633079 PMC2509616
  14. [17]Wander N Malone RE Making big tobacco give in: you lose, they win Am J Public Health 2006 96 11 2048 54 17018823 PMC1751801
  15. [22]Tumwine J Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Africa: Current Status of Legislation Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011 8 11 4312 31 22163209 PMC3228573
  16. [23]Mamudu H Glantz S Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Glob Public Healt 2009 4 2 150 68 PMC2664518 19333806
  17. [24]Mamudu HM Gonzalez ME Glantz S The nature, scope, and development of the global tobacco control epistemic community Am J Public Health 2011 101 11 2044 54 21940926 PMC3207640
  18. [25]Diller P Graff S Regulating Food Retail for Obesity Prevention Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2011 39 supp 1 89 93 21309906
  19. [26]Brownell KD Koplan JP Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling—An Abuse of Trust by the Food Industry? N Engl J Med 2011 364 25 2373 5 21696305

Authors
Sanders-Jackson, A. N., Song, A. V., Hiilamo, H., & Glantz, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, Merced (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2013-11
Volume
103
Issue
11
Pages
2041-2047
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2141711136
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA009253)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA113710, CA087472, R25CA113710, R01CA087472, T32CA113710)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, international policy diffusion, transition probabilities, event history analysis, tobacco control
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Compliance, Health Policy, Humans, Life Change Events, Product Labeling, World Health Organization, Tobacco Industry, Tobacco Products

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