Table 2

GEE results testing the changes in smokers’ reactions and attentional orientation to HWLs from preimplementation (2011) to postimplementation (2013) of new HWLs and plain packaging

Outcome variablesn/N†Weighted prevalence estimates‡Survey year main effects (2013 vs 2011)
Pre (2011)Post (2013)β (SE)OR (95% CI)
Notice1499/21593.233.400.15 (0.05)**
Read1501/21642.332.280.00 (0.04)
Cognitive reactions1502/21631.821.950.11 (0.02)***
Forgo1500/21591.231.280.01 (0.02)
Avoid (Yes vs No)1504/216913.333.93.06 (2.50 to 3.75)***
Attentional orientation (HWL first vs Branding first)1504/216929.164.44.19 (3.52 to 4.99)***
  • All estimates in the table adjusted for age, sex, income, education, cigarettes per day, past year quit attempts, survey mode (phone vs web) and wave of recruitment.

  • Score range: notice=1–5, read=1–5, cognitive reactions=1–3.7, forgo=1–4.

  • *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

  • †Variation in n is due to missing data on one or more independent variables included in the models.

  • ‡All figures refer to mean scores except those in bold, which refer to percentages.

  • –, Not applicable; β, regression coefficients; GEE, generalised estimating equation; HWL, health warning label; N, number of person-wave observations; n, number of unique individuals.