Perceived efficacy of existing waterpipe tobacco warning labels versus novel enhanced generic and waterpipe-specific sets

Abstract

Introduction Since 2008, Egypt has four existing generic bi-annually rotating warning labels (WLs) on 50% of the waterpipe tobacco packs (WTPs). The Ministry of Health Tobacco Control Unit proposed increasing WL size to 80%, removing colours and flavour imagery from WTPs, and plain packaging to help curb the rising epidemic of waterpipe tobacco smoking. Therefore, we measured the perceived efficacy of existing against novel enhanced (generic and waterpipe-specific) WTP WLs and the associated factors among Egyptian waterpipe smokers and nonsmokers. Methods A purposive quota sample of 2014 adults was surveyed in two rounds using face interviews. At each round, participants were randomly shown one of four existing WLs, then one of four novel WLs. Participants rated the perceived efficacy of existing and novel WLs regarding the salience, depth of processing, affective reactions, credibility, relevance, perceived harm and perceived behavioural control. Data were analysed using Generalized Estimating Equations. Results Participants rated novel WTP WLs with higher mean perceived efficacy scores than existing WLs for all measures, although both sets collectively scored modestly (59.7; 95% CI: 58.9–60.5 vs 53.0; 95% CI: 52.1–54.0, respectively; p<0.001). Relative to the existing WTP WLs, novel WLs were particularly able to induce higher salience, affective reactions, and depth of processing. Relative to the generic novel WTP WLs, waterpipe-specific WLs induced higher relevance, perceived harm, and affective reactions. Nonsmokers scored higher than waterpipe tobacco smokers, specifically for perceived behavioral control (65.0±32.5 vs 43.6±19.8, respectively; p<0.001). WTP WLs featuring proximal risks, such as dental effects (β = 9.70; 95% CI: 7.00–12.40), fetal harm (β = 9.42; 95% CI: 6.75–12.10), or toxic contents (β = 9.14; 95% CI: 6.58–11.70) were strongly associated with participants’ perceived efficacy scores. Among other independent factors, rural residence (β = 24.09; 95% CI: 22.21–25.97), being a nonsmoker (β = 10.51; 95% CI: 8.92–12.10), survey round 2 (β = 6.96, 95% CI: 5.73–8.19), the novel WTP WL set (β = 6.68; 95% CI: 6.19–7.17), and having higher education (β = 6.31; 95% CI: 4.34–8.27) were highly associated with participants’ perceived efficacy scores. Conclusions Waterpipe-specific WLs on plain WTPs that feature proximal risks and address different population subgroups need to be developed in conjunction with awareness raising campaigns on WTS harms to reinforce the credibility of WTP WLs. Our findings suggest the proposed WTP WL enhancements by the Tobacco Control Unit may support a more effective WTP labelling policy within a comprehensive waterpipe-specific tobacco control framework.