Exposure to anti- and pro-tobacco advertising, promotions or sponsorships: Turkey, 2008.

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, Turkey became one of 26 countries with a complete ban on all forms of direct and indirect tobacco marketing. We assessed the level of exposure to anti- and pro-cigarette advertising and to cigarette promotions and sponsorships among various demographic groups in Turkey. METHODS: We used the data from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), conducted in November 2008 in Turkey. The data consist of answers to GATS questions by 9030 respondents from a nationally representative, multistage probability sample of adults 15 years of age or older. To find differences in exposure to the advertising by sex, age, education level and smoking status, we analyzed responses to GATS questions about cigarette advertisements and anti-cigarette smoking information in various forms and through various advertising channels, during the 30 days before the survey, using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 13.3% of respondents aged 15 years or older noticed some type of cigarette marketing during the 30 days before the survey: 7.1% saw advertisements, 5.3% saw promotions and 3.3% saw sports sponsorships. Men were more likely than women to have seen cigarette promotions (7.8% versus 3.0%) and sports sponsorships (5.3% versus 1.4%). Respondents aged 15-24 years were more likely than those aged 25 years or older to have seen cigarette advertisements (10.2% versus 6.2%), promotions (8.7% versus 4.4%) and sponsorships (6.6% versus 2.3%), respectively. Respondents were most likely to have seen cigarette advertisements on television (3.4%) or in shops (2.7%). In addition, 2.8% of respondents reported seeing a clothing item with a brand name or logo, 2.5% reported that they received free samples of cigarettes and 0.3% received gifts along with the purchase of cigarettes. Almost 9 of 10 survey respondents (88.8%) reported having noticed some anti-cigarette information during the 30 days before the survey. Most anti-cigarette information was seen on television (85.5%). The anti-cigarette information was seen by slightly more cigarette smokers (91.6%) than nonsmokers (87.6%). Persons with less than a primary education were less likely to notice anti-cigarette information than those with a higher level of education, in all examined media channels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed a low prevalence of noticing cigarette marketing, which indicates high compliance with the Turkish law banning such marketing. GATS data provide an in-depth understanding of the level of exposure to pro- and anti-cigarette information in 2008 and they are of practical assistance to those who implement policies to reduce the demand for tobacco. The challenge now is to maintain rigorous enforcement. To do so requires ongoing surveillance to produce data on the effectiveness of the enforcement efforts.

Cigarette prices and smoking prevalence after a tobacco tax increase--Turkey, 2008 and 2012.

Raising the price of tobacco products has been shown to reduce tobacco consumption in the United States and other high-income countries, and evidence of this impact has been growing for low- and middle-income countries as well. Turkey is a middle-income country surveyed by the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) twice in a 4-year period, in 2008 and 2012. During this time, the country introduced a policy raising its Special Consumption Tax on Tobacco and implemented a comprehensive tobacco control program banning smoking in public places, banning advertising, and introducing graphic health warnings. The higher tobacco tax took effect in early 2010, allowing sufficient time for subsequent changes in prices and smoking to be observed by the time of the 2012 GATS. This report uses data from GATS Turkey to examine how cigarette prices changed after the 2010 tax increase, describe the temporally associated changes in smoking prevalence, and learn whether this smoking prevalence changed more in some demographic groups than others. From 2008 to 2012, the average price paid for cigarettes increased by 42.1%, cigarettes became less affordable, and smoking prevalence decreased by 14.6%. The largest reduction in smoking was observed among persons with lower socioeconomic status (SES), highlighting the potential role of tax policy in reducing health disparities across socioeconomic groups.