One cigarette is one too many: evaluating a light smoker-targeted media campaign.

BACKGROUND: Light smokers represent an increasing share of adult smokers in various parts of the world including New York City (NYC). Since 2007, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has aired hard-hitting antitobacco media campaigns paired with time-limited nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) giveaways. We evaluated an original antitobacco media campaign, developed to increase awareness of smoking risks and encourage cessation service use among light smokers in NYC. METHODS: We compared cessation service request volume during the campaign to historical periods without ads targeting light smokers. We used a cross-sectional online panel survey to assess the ad's perceived effectiveness and its impact on learning something new, quit intentions and concern for smoking-related health risks among non-daily, light daily and heavy daily smokers. RESULTS: The proportion of light smokers among smokers requesting cessation services increased 50% (from 13% to 20%) relative to previous time-limited NRT giveaways. Compared to heavy daily smokers, non-daily (aOR: 1.95, p<0.05) and light daily (aOR: 2.27, p<0.05) smokers were more likely to express increased concern about smoking-related health risks after viewing the ad. Perceived effectiveness of the ad did not differ by smoker type. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that light smokers were receptive to a targeted antitobacco message encouraging use of cessation services. The campaign appears to have been particularly effective in increasing smoking-related health concerns in this group. The lack of difference in perceived ad effectiveness by smoker type suggests the potential to develop such ads without sacrificing broad impact.

Awareness and impact of New York City's graphic point-of-sale tobacco health warning signs.

BACKGROUND: To increase knowledge of smoking-related health risks and provide smoking cessation information at the point of sale, in 2009, New York City required the posting of graphic point-of-sale tobacco health warnings in tobacco retailers. This study is the first to evaluate the impact of such a policy in the USA. METHODS: Cross-sectional street-intercept surveys conducted among adult current smokers and recent quitters before and after signage implementation assessed the awareness and impact of the signs. Approximately 10 street-intercept surveys were conducted at each of 50 tobacco retailers in New York City before and after policy implementation. A total of 1007 adults who were either current smokers or recent quitters were surveyed about the awareness and impact of tobacco health warning signs. Multivariate risk ratios (RR) were calculated to estimate awareness and impact of the signs. RESULTS: Most participants (86%) were current smokers, and the sample was 28% African-American, 32% Hispanic/Latino and 27% non-Hispanic white. Awareness of tobacco health warning signs more than doubled after the policy implementation (adjusted RR =2.01, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.33). Signage posting was associated with an 11% increase in the extent to which signs made respondents think about quitting smoking (adjusted RR =1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22). CONCLUSIONS: A policy requiring tobacco retailers to display graphic health warning signs increased awareness of health risks of smoking and stimulated thoughts about quitting smoking. Additional research aimed at evaluating the effect of tobacco control measures in the retail environment is necessary to provide further rationale for implementing these changes.