Long-term benefit of increasing the
prominence of a quitline number on
cigarette packaging
Nick Wilson, Judy Li, Janet Hoek, Richard Edwards*,
Jo Peace
University of Otago (Wellington & Dunedin)
New Zealand
*[email protected]
1
Background & Methods

In 2008: new PHWs required to have the
national “Quitline” no. (previously unclear
what the telephone no. was for)

Data source: Routine Quitline service data
(new callers are asked where they sourced
the Quitline number)
2
ar
Ap 07
r- 0
M
ay 7
Ju 07
n0
Ju 7
l
Au 07
g
Se - 07
p
Oc - 07
tNo 07
v
De -0 7
cJa 0 7
n
Fe -0 8
bM 08
ar
Ap 08
r- 0
M
ay 8
Ju 08
n0
Ju 8
l
Au -08
g
Se - 08
p
Oc - 08
tNo 08
v
De -0 8
cJa 0 8
n
Fe -0 9
b
M - 09
ar
Ap 09
r
M - 09
ay
Ju 09
n0
Ju 9
l
Au 09
g
Se - 09
p
Oc - 09
tNo 09
v
De -0 9
c-0
Ja 9
n
Fe -1 0
b10
M
Source of Quitline number (%)
Television
15
10
Tobacco packaging
40
35
25
3000
20
2500
Start of
PHW
phase-in
↓
5
0
2000
TARPs per month*
Results
TARPs/month
5000
4500
4000
30
3500
1500
1000
500
0
3
Results & Discussion

This suggests a long-term benefit (short-term response of
Quitline no. on packs seen in: Australia, Brazil,
Netherlands, Singapore & UK).

Similar proportions citing tobacco packaging (as the
source of the Quitline no.) in the last 12m period:
 Māori (21%),
 Pacific (26%),
 European/Other (23%).
4
Still opportunities to improve Quitline no. visibility
& reduce visual clutter of PHWs
NZ example
Australian example
5