Table 1

Never, former and current smokers’ opinions towards the introduction of plain packaging and larger GHWs in the State of Victoria, 2011–2013

2011a (1 year prior to implementation)
2012b (roll out)
2013 (1 year postimplementation)
Plain packaging: “From/As of December 1 2012, the Federal Government requires/d all cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging. This means cigarette packs all look the same with brand logos and colours removed. Only the brand name in plain text and the graphic health warning labels remain. Do you approve or disapprove of this change?”
Never smokers (n=2527) (n=2314) (n=2200)
Approves of plain packaging75.980.1a**78.5a*
Disapproves of plain packaging12.710.1a**8.4a***
Former smokers (n=1247) (n=1102) (n=1186)
Approves of plain packaging70.569.970.6
Disapproves of plain packaging17.217.313.9a*b*
Current smokers (n=726) (n=587) (n=615)
Approves of plain packaging52.849.954.1
Disapproves of plain packaging36.430.5a*28.2a**
Graphic health warnings: “In order to strengthen the impact of the health messages on packs, the Federal government requires/d that from December 1st 2012, the size of pictorial health warnings will be/have been increased to cover 75% of the front of the cigarette pack. Do you support or oppose the increased size of pictorial health warnings to 75% of the front of the cigarette pack?”
Never smokers(n=2527)(n=2314)(n=2200)
Supports GHW increase78.982.5a**81.6a*
Opposes GHW increase10.68.6a*6.0a***b**
Former smokers(n=1247)(n=1102)(n=1186)
Supports GHW increase73.973.170.9
Opposes GHW increase15.214.511.8a*
Current smokers(n=726)(n=587)(n=615)
Supports GHW increase57.254.252.4
Opposes GHW increase29.727.020.7a***b*
  • *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05.

  • abReference categories for bivariate logistic regression.

  • †The neutral categories included ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don't know’ responses; don't know responses were reported by a minority within each neutral category.

  • GHWs, graphic health warnings.