Table 3

Results from linear regression models predicting Graphic Health Warning Impact and Negative Pack Perceptions from month of interview in the plain packaging and comparison periods

Comparison period (2011–2012)Plain packaging period (2012–2013)
M(SD)β95% CIp ValueM(SD)β95% CIp Value
GHW impact
Month
 Aug/SeptNA2.67(0.93)Ref
 Oct/Nov2.57(0.90)Ref2.75(0.97)0.00−0.160.180.932
 Dec/Jan2.62(0.99)−0.01−0.250.210.8472.88(1.16)0.090.070.460.008
 Feb/March2.77(0.89)0.10−0.190.580.3232.75(1.15)0.07−0.040.390.110
 April/May2.67(0.96)−0.01−0.520.480.9302.85(1.21)0.060.010.340.043
Negative pack perceptions
Month
 Aug/SeptNA3.95(0.76)Ref
 Oct/Nov4.03(0.60)Ref3.96(0.75)0.02−0.471.060.449
 Dec/Jan4.11(0.64)0.06−0.431.460.2864.50(0.63)0.272.744.18<0.001
 Feb/March4.08(0.59)0.03−1.401.880.7754.58(0.61)0.373.144.75<0.001
 April/May4.03(0.69)0.07−1.612.800.5984.64(0.63)0.403.875.21<0.001
  • Models controlled for demographics (sex, age, SES), smoking characteristics (frequency and level of smoking, 12 m quitting history), antismoking advertising activity (TARPs), and recent increases in cigarette costliness (% increase in past 12 weeks); M's and SD's are unweighted.

  • β, standardised coefficient; GHW, graphic health warnings; M, Mean (range 1–5).