[Correspondence] Training children in cardiopulmonary resuscitation worldwide

In Europe and the USA, 700 000 people die after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) every year,1 about 2000 deaths per day. These estimates apply to many other parts of the world. This cause of death is probably the third most common cause of death in developed countries, after all cancers combined and other cardiovascular causes.1 When professional emergency medical services arrive after cardiac arrest—which can be after 8–12 min or more—the brain has already started to die.

Sky-high Indigenous imprisonment rates a health disaster

Imprisonment is rarely good for health, particularly if you are an Indigenous Australian.

But, tragically, Indigenous people are far more likely to be locked up than other Australians, exacerbating health problems and sending many into a downward spiral of illness and premature death.

The figures are stark.

In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody identified extraordinary rates of incarceration among Indigenous Australians compared with the rest of the community, and established a link with poor general and mental health.

But, despite the Royal Commission’s recommendations, the situation has got significantly worse.

Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the adult imprisonment rate soared 57 per cent between 2000 and 2013, while juvenile detention rates increased sharply between 2000-01 and 2007-08, and have fluctuated ever since at around 24 times the rate for non-Indigenous youth.

Currently, almost a third of all prisoners are Aboriginal, including 48 per cent of juveniles held in custody.

Not only that, but the rate of reoffending is astronomical. In fact, repeat offending and re-incarceration is a large contributor to this high rate of imprisonment.

Shocking though these statistics are, they do not begin to describe the suffering and distress experienced by incarcerated Indigenous people, their families and communities.

Mental illness and mental health problems, including alcohol and drug abuse, contribute significantly to their rates of imprisonment and recidivism.

Being incarcerated, in turn, exacerbates existing conditions in prisoners. And, without appropriate and effective treatment within prison, mental illness and mental health issues are a major factor in poor outcomes for people released from prison, including suicide, death from overdose or injury and reoffending.

Social disadvantage and a history of upheaval culminating in trauma and grief clearly contribute to the high level of imprisonment among Indigenous Australians.

Many studies published since 2000 have highlighted that Aboriginal people already have a higher prevalence of significant psychological distress when compared to the non-Aboriginal population, disrupting social and emotional wellbeing and causing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and substance abuse.

Alcohol is well-known as a common precursor to offending among Indigenous Australians, with indications that it could be a factor in up to 90 per cent of all Indigenous contacts with the justice system.

Once incarcerated, Aboriginal prisoners are at greater risk of developing or exacerbating a mental illness. Ninety-three per cent of Aboriginal women in jail, and 81 per cent of men, have some form of mental illness. Altogether, 30 per cent of Aboriginal women and 20 per cent of Aboriginal men in jail have attempted suicide, and 33 per cent of Aboriginal women and 12 per cent of Aboriginal men suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

It is apparent that there is a complete lack of appropriate services to meet complex social, cultural and health needs.

A clearer understanding of some of the drivers of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women is needed, as are better interventions through culturally appropriate health and disability services before entering custody, during imprisonment, at the time of release and post-release.

There are several things that can and should be done to end this vicious cycle of illness, abuse and incarceration for Indigenous people, including making it much easier for Indigenous offenders to get into diversion programs for alcohol and drug-related offences; establishing Indigenous-specific diversion programs linked to Aboriginal community controlled services; improving the level of health services for Indigenous prisoners; comprehensive health screening for those entering prison, and channelling them into appropriate treatment; and research and develop performance indicators to guide effective health services for Indigenous offenders.

These matters will be considered in the AMA’s Indigenous Health Report Card, which will be released later this year.

Sickest, smallest to be hit hardest by Commonwealth cuts

The Federal Government has been warned that more people are likely to die because of an increasing shortfall of thousands of doctors, nurses and other health professionals in public hospitals as a result of Commonwealth cutbacks.

AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler said the Abbott Government’s decision to reduce public hospital by $57 billion over 10 years would have a devastating effect on the State and Territory health systems.

“The AMA has warned of a perfect storm if funding is not increased,” A/Professor Owler said. “We already see hospitals struggling to achieve performance targets. We know that overcrowding, we know that delays in getting into a bed from the emergency department, is not just a matter of the headlines, it is matter of increased morbidity. People have more complications or are more likely to die if they spend more and more time in an emergency department.”

The AMA National Conference was told that in Queensland alone, the Federal Government’s decision to slash growth in public hospital funding from 2017 will rip $11.8 billion out of the State health system over 10 years, resulting in 1503 fewer doctors and 5319 fewer nurses being employed in the time.

A/Professor Owler said the outlook for the smaller states and territories, which had limited revenue-raising capacity, was particularly worrying.

“I really fear for those states, because we know that their economies are quite small. They don’t have the ability to make up the shortfall in revenue, and those states are going to be really badly affected,” he said.

Queensland Health Minister Cameron Dick told the AMA National Conference that the Commonwealth was shoving more of the burden of public hospital funding on to the states.

Mr Dick released modelling by his Department showing that the Commonwealth’s share of national efficient public hospital expenditure would peak at 35.5 per cent in 2016-17 before rapidly falling away to just 32.1 per cent by 2024-25 – virtually 10 percentage points below the level committed to in the 2011 National Health Reform Agreement.

“There will be greater pressure on the hospital system as a result,” the Queensland Minister said. “People will have to wait longer for surgery, people will have to wait longer for patient appointments. We will not be able to deliver the services we need. As the population gets older and costly medical technology increases, there will be a gap.”

AMA Tasmania President Dr Tim Greenaway described to the AMA National Conference how the Commonwealth funding cut would hit his State particularly hard.

Tasmania has the nation’s oldest, fattest, poorest and – by many measures – least healthy population, and Dr Greenaway warned the Federal Government’s policy would only make the situation worse.

Despite having greater health needs than most other states and territories, Tasmania’s spending on health care ($1275 per capita) is below the national average ($1735 per capita), and Dr Greenaway said the Commonwealth’s funding cuts would only “lock in” the State’s inadequate investment in health, “which will inevitably increase health disparity”.

The states and territories are furious the Federal Government has walked away from its commitments under the National Health Reform Agreement, and the issue is set to be near the top of the agenda when Prime Minister Tony Abbott meets with his State and Territory counterparts to discuss reform of the Federation at a leader’s retreat in July.

A/Professor Owler said the Federal Government’s decision was indefensible.

“It’s up to the Commonwealth to live up to its responsibility to make sure that all Australia’s get access to the services they deserve,” he said, adding that the squeeze on hospitals would also have a significant effect on doctor and nurse training.

A video of the Quality public hospital services: funding capacity for performance policy session can be viewed at: media/ama-national-conference-30-may-2015-session-1

Adrian Rollins

Access to health services by Australians with disability 2012

In 2012, 17% of people with disability who needed to see a GP delayed or did not go because of the cost; 20% who needed to see a medical specialist did not go mainly due to the cost; and 67% who needed to see a dentist delayed seeing or did not go because of the cost. Compared with people with disability living in Major cities, people with disability living in Outer regional and Remote areas had lower use rates of services provided by GPs, medical specialists and dentists as well as coordinated care provided by different types of health professionals. They were more likely to visit a hospital emergency department for health issues that could potentially be dealt with by non-hospital services, and to face barriers to accessing health services.

Incentives hold out promise of better after hours care

The Federal Government has promised patients will find it simpler and easier to see a GP at night or on weekends following the reinstatement of incentives for medical practices to provide after hours services.

In a move strongly supported by the AMA, Health Minister Sussan Ley has announced that almost $99 million will be provided next financial year to pay practices that operate extended hours or make arrangements for their patients to receive after hours care.

Ms Ley said access to after hours GP care was an issue that was raised consistently during her consultations with the medical profession and the community since becoming Minister, and the incentive would give “positive support” to practices that ensured their patients had access to after hours care.

The reinstatement of the incentive was a key recommendation of the review of after hours primary health services led by Professor Claire Jackson, and followed widespread dissatisfaction with the arrangement under the previous Labor Government to give Medicare Locals responsibility for co-ordinating and funding after hours services.

AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler applauded the Minister for moving so swiftly to reinstate the Practice Incentives Program After Hours Incentive.

A/Professor Owler said the AMA had been calling for the return of the PIP funding “for some time” because of the benefit it would provide to both patients and practices.

“The new PIP payment structure will encourage and support general practices to provide after hours coverage for their patients, which will in turn ensure continuity of care,” the AMA President said. “Individual practices will now have greater control over after hours services for their patients, [and] patients will benefit.”

To pay for the reinstatement of the PIP incentive, the Government has scrapped the After Hours GP Helpline and redirected funds freed up by the abandonment of the Medicare Locals network.

Though some complained that the Helpline has provided a vital service, the Jackson review found there was little evidence it had reduced the pressure on rural doctors to attend after hours call-outs or improved continuity of care. It recommended that the service be scrapped and the funds instead directed into GP incentives.

While details of eligibility requirements for the incentives are yet to be released, the scheme –which commences on 1 July – will offer five payment levels depending on the degree of service provided.

They range from the very basic, level 1 service involving “formal” arrangements for patients to seek after hours care at another provider, through to a full service model where a practice has staff rostered on around the clock, seven days a week.

The incentive would rise from $1 for each Standardised Whole Patient Equivalent (an age-weighted measure based on GP and other non-referred consultation items in the MBS) at a level 1 practice, rising to $11 per SWPE at the top end.

The Minister said all practices would be required to inform patients of their after hours arrangements, and to ensure that correct details were provided in the National Health Service Directory.

“Under these new arrangements, patients will be able to easily find out what after-hours services are available, including services provided by arrangement outside of the patient’s usual general practice,” Ms Ley said.

The reintroduction of the after hours PIP has coincided with the Federal Government’s move to scrap Medicare Locals and replace them with larger Primary Health Networks.

Importantly, the Government has specified a different role for PHNs regarding the provision of after hours services than that fulfilled by the Medicare Locals.

Under the new arrangement, PHNs will be required to work with “key local stakeholders” to plan, co-ordinate and support after hours health services, with a particular focus on “addressing gaps in after hours service provision, ‘at risk’ populations and improved service integration”.

A/Professor Owler said the change in focus and function was welcome.

“The Government has listened and responded to AMA concerns about giving responsibility for after hours funding to Medicare Locals, which has proven to largely be a failure and simply increased red tape for practices,” the AMA President said. “While the new Primary Health Networks will still have a role to play in ensuring community access to after hours health services, their focus will be on gaps in service delivery.”

Adrian Rollins

Govt wants kids to have cut-price health checks

The Federal Government wants children to have cut-price health checks after confirming it would rip almost $145 million out of general practice by abolishing a Medicare program that last year provided comprehensive pre-school health assessments for 154,000 children.

But Health Minister Sussan Ley said parents would still be able to get their GP to conduct a similar Medicare-funded health check of their child, though at a fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

The Minister was forced to make the clarification after an announcement in the Federal Budget that $144.6 million would be taken out of general practice over the next four years by “removing the current duplication” Medicare-funded health checks and child health assessments provided by the states and territories.

AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler voiced concern about the cut, saying it was “very unclear” whether or not there was duplication occurring.

The measure was also heavily criticised by health groups angered by what appeared to be a decision to axe comprehensive health checks for children aged three to five years, introduced by the former Labor Government in 2008.

But Ms Ley rushed to assure parents that they could still get Medicare-funded health checks for their children.

“Parents needing to access the pre-school health check for their child in order to access income support will still be able to do so through a GP or the various state-based nurse infant and children checks, as is currently the case,” the Minister said. “The only change in the Budget is to the Medicare items GPs can bill taxpayers and patients for undertaking the check.”

The Government has moved to scrap Labor’s “Healthy Kids Check”, which costs Medicare $268.80 per visit, and instead allow GPs to bill for the check as a standard GP item costing $105.55 for an equivalent amount of time.

“Instead of GPs billing a special Medicare item worth hundreds of dollars per visit, they will instead be able to deliver the pre-school health check for three- and four-year-olds through a standard GP item worth about half that,” Ms Ley said.

The Government said an increase in the number of people using the Healthy Kids Check in recent years had sent the cost spiralling.

It reported that the number of assessments had jumped from 40,031 in 2008-09 to 153,725 last financial year, driving the annual cost from $1.8 million to $20 million.

While lamenting the cost of the program, Ms Ley simultaneously criticised it for not being comprehensive enough.

“Currently, only half of Australia’s 300,000-plus four-year-olds have accessed a pre-school health check at the more expensive billing rates,” the Minister said, adding there was no evidence show Labor’s program provided health checks superior to standard GP and state infant check services.

But a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia last year did not support this conclusion.

It found the program was effective in detecting problems with speech, toileting, hearing, vision and behaviour in about 20 per cent of children, and directly led to changes in the clinical management of between 3 and 11 per cent of such children.

The study’s authors said their results suggested “GPs are identifying important child health concerns during the Healthy Kids Checks, using appropriate clinical judgement for the management of some conditions, and referring when concerned”.

They added that GPs were also using the checks as an opportunity to identify other health problems.

The authors admitted to having no knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of the program, “although, given that its timing coincides with vaccination at four years of age, the incremental cost is likely small”.

It followed a study published in the MJA in 2010 which found that although the evidence behind the Healthy Kids Check at that stage was “not compelling”, it had the potential to play an important role in monitoring child development by filling a gap between maternal and child health nurse screening and examinations of selected children by school nursing services.

Adrian Rollins

Use of nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medicines in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers

In 2012–2013, 44% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults smoked, 2.5 times the age-standardised prevalence among other Australian adults, and 26% were ex-smokers.1 Although the proportion of those who had ever smoked and had successfully quit was only 37%, compared with 63% of other Australians, this had increased from 24% in 2002.1,2 Several types of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; gum, patches, lozenges, sublingual tablets and inhalers) and two prescription-only stop-smoking medicines (SSMs; bupropion and varenicline) are available in Australia to assist cessation.3 All have been shown to increase the chance of successfully quitting, with varenicline and combinations of NRT being the most effective.4

Nicotine gum became available in Australia in the 1980s, followed by patches in the 1990s and other forms of NRT in the past decade.3 Over-the-counter availability of NRT occurred first in pharmacies, then supermarkets. Subsidised availability by prescription for patches followed listing with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for veterans from 1994, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from 2009, and all others from 2011. Bupropion was listed on the PBS in 2001, and varenicline in 2008.3 Since 1999, Aboriginal health services in remote areas have been able to dispense these PBS items at no cost through Section 100 of the National Health Act 1953.5 In addition, since July 2010, many non-remote Aboriginal health services and general practices participating in the Indigenous Health Incentive of the Practice Incentives Program have been able to reduce or eliminate the copayment for all PBS medicines, including SSMs, for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.6

Clinical guidelines suggest that NRT, bupropion or varenicline be recommended to all dependent smokers who are interested in quitting.7–9 Here, we explore the use of these medicines and beliefs about them among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers. We also explore variation in their use among dependent smokers in this population, and make comparisons with smokers in the general Australian population.

Methods

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 1643 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and 78 recent ex-smokers (who had quit ≤ 12 months before), using a quota sampling design based on the communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait. It has been described in detail elsewhere.10,11 Briefly, the 35 sites were selected based on the distribution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population by state or territory and remoteness. In 30 sites, we aimed to interview 50 smokers or recent ex-smokers and 25 non-smokers, with equal numbers of women and men, and those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. In four large city sites and the Torres Strait community, the sample sizes were doubled. People were excluded if they were aged under 18 years, not usual residents of the area, staff of the ACCHS or deemed unable to complete the survey. In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, although not random, sample.

Baseline data were collected from April 2012 to October 2013. Interviews were conducted face to face by trained interviewers, almost all of whom were members of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The survey was completed on a computer tablet and took 30–60 minutes. A single survey of health service activities was also completed at each site. The baseline sample closely matched the distribution of age, sex, jurisdiction, remoteness, quit attempts in the past year and number of daily cigarettes smoked reported in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS). However, there were inconsistent differences in some socioeconomic indicators: our sample had higher proportions of unemployed people, but also higher proportions who had completed Year 12 and who lived in more advantaged areas.10

The TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) collaboration. Interview questions were closely based on those in ITC Project surveys, especially the Australian surveys.12 We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had ever used NRT or SSMs, and which they had used. For those who had used NRT, we asked if they were currently using it, when and for how long they last used it, where they got it and if it was free, and whether they would use it again in the future. We asked similar questions of those who had used SSMs. We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they thought NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit, and about their quit attempts and sociodemographic factors. The questions are described in detail in Appendix 1.

We used the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) to assess dependence among daily smokers. The HSI was coded 0 to 6 based on the sum of the responses to two questions: cigarettes per day (CPD) and time to first cigarette (TTFC). These items were each coded as 0 (0–10 CPD; TTFC, ≥ 61 min), 1 (11–20 CPD; TTFC, 31–60 min), 2 (21–30 CPD; TTFC, 6–30 min) or 3 (≥ 31 CPD; TTFC, ≤ 5 min).13 We categorised HSI as low (0–1), moderate (2–3) or high (4–6).14,15 We also assessed the three criteria for dependence in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) cessation guidelines: TTFC ≤ 30 min, > 10 CPD, and withdrawal symptoms on previous quit attempts (defined in our sample as strong cravings during the most recent quit attempt).7

TATS project results were compared with those of 1017 daily smokers surveyed in Wave 8 of the Australian ITC Project between July 2010 and May 2011. The ITC Project survey was completed by random digit telephone dialling or on the internet, and included smokers contacted for the first time and those who were recontacted after completing surveys in previous waves. For respondents who had completed surveys in previous waves, the ITC Project questions about use of NRT or SSMs were different to the TATS project questions, so for these comparisons we included only the 189 daily smokers who were newly recruited to the ITC Project.

The project was approved by three Aboriginal human research ethics committees (HRECs) and two HRECs with Aboriginal subcommittees: Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council Ethics Committee, Sydney; Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, Adelaide; Central Australian HREC, Alice Springs; HREC for the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin; and the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee, Perth.

Statistical analyses

We calculated the percentages and frequencies of responses to the TATS project questions, but did not include confidence intervals for these as it is not considered statistically acceptable to estimate sampling error in non-probabilistic samples. We compared results for daily smokers with those from the Australian ITC Project, which were directly standardised to the distribution of age and sex of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers reported in the 2008 NATSISS.

Within the TATS project sample, we assessed the association between variables using logistic regression, with confidence intervals adjusted for the sampling design, using the 35 sites as clusters and the age–sex quotas as strata in Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands).16 P values were calculated for each variable using adjusted Wald tests. However, we used χ2 tests to assess the association of variables with beliefs about whether NRT and SSMs help in quitting, and the association of past use with reasons for not intending to use them in the future. Median durations of NRT use are reported with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and were compared using the non-parametric equality of medians test.

Reported percentages and frequencies exclude those refusing to answer or answering “don’t know”, except for questions on future interest in NRT or SSM use and whether they help in quitting, which include those answering “don’t know”. Less than 2% of smokers and recent ex-smokers answered “don’t know” or refused to answer each of the questions analysed here.

Results

Compared with other daily Australian smokers in the ITC Project, lower proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers reported ever using any NRT or SSMs (37% [515/1379] v 58.5% [95% CI, 42.8%–72.6%]) and having used them in the past year (23% [318/1369] v 42.1% [95% CI, 29.4%–56.0%]).

Among all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers in the TATS project sample, 29% (501/1700) had ever used NRT and 11% (193/1700) had used SSMs. Nicotine patches were the most commonly used, by 24% (415/1699), followed by varenicline (11%; 183/1699), nicotine gum (10%; 174/1699), lozenges (3%; 50/1699), and inhalers (3%; 50/1699). Only 1% (17/1699) had used bupropion.

Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who had used NRT within the past year, most had last got it from an Aboriginal medical service (46%; 99/216), pharmacy (31%; 66/216) or another local health service (15%; 32/216), with only 3% (6/216) getting it from an ordinary store. Three-quarters (74%; 161/217) got their NRT at no cost, including almost all who got it from an Aboriginal medical service (93%; 92/99) or another local health service (91%; 29/32).

Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who had used NRT within the past year but were currently not using it, only 9% (16/174) had used it for the recommended period of more than 2 months;7–9 49% (85/174) used it for a week or less and 79% (138/174) for a month or less. The median duration of NRT use was 14 days (IQR, 3–30 days), with no significant differences by HSI score or whether it was free.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who were more dependent, according to the HSI and RACGP criteria, were more likely to have ever used NRT or SSMs than those who were less dependent (Box 1). Fewer non-daily smokers than daily smokers or recent ex-smokers had ever used them. These associations were similar but less marked for use in the past year.

Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who were at least moderately dependant (HSI score ≥ 2), the group for whom NRT and SSMs are recommended, those who were socioeconomically advantaged were more likely than the disadvantaged to have ever used NRT or SSMs and to have used them in the past year (Box 2). Use decreased with increasing remoteness and area-level disadvantage, increased with education, and was lower among those who reported being treated unfairly in the past year because they were Indigenous. Use also increased with age and was higher among smokers whose local health service had dedicated tobacco control resources. Those who were socioeconomically disadvantaged were even less likely to use SSMs than NRT (Appendix 2).

Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers said NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit: 70% said they help “very much” or “somewhat”, 16% said “not at all” and 14% did not know (Box 3). Similarly, the Australian ITC Project reported that 74.2% (95% CI, 68.9%–78.9%) of Australian daily smokers agreed that NRT and SSMs would make it easier to quit, 11.0% (95% CI, 8.7%–13.8%) disagreed, and 14.8% (95% CI, 10.8%–20.0%) neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know.

Having used NRT or SSMs was strongly associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers believing that they help in quitting. Heavy smokers were more likely to believe that they would not help at all (Box 3).

Dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who believed NRT and SSMs would help in quitting and those who had used them (ever or in the past year) were more likely to be interested in using them in the future (Box 4). Frequency of strong urges to smoke and strong cravings on the most recent quit attempt were not associated with interest in future use of NRT and SSMs (data not shown).

The main reasons given by dependent smokers who were not interested in using NRT and SSMs in future were that they were not ready to quit (NRT, 36% [162/445]; SSMs, 29% [131/449]), because of side effects (19% [85/445]; 25% [114/449]), they did not think they would work (18% [81/445]; 16% [73/449]) and they preferred not to use them (16% [73/445]; 18% [82/449]). Cost was rarely mentioned as a reason (3% [15/445]; 2% [10/449]). There were significant differences between the reasons given by those who had and had not used NRT or SSMs in the past year (P < 0.001). Those who had used NRT were more likely than those who had not to say they would not use it in the future because of side effects (45% [26/58] v 15% [59/386]) and were less likely to report not being ready to quit (12% [7/58] v 40% [155/386]).

Discussion

We found lower use of NRT and SSMs among daily smokers in a large nationally representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample than among those in the general Australian population. This is consistent with research in various countries that has found that smokers from more disadvantaged groups are less likely to use these medicines.17,18 We also found a social gradient of reducing use with increasing disadvantage (including perceived experiences of racism) within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Consistent with previous research, we found this gradient was steeper for the use of varenicline (bupropion accounted for very little of the SSM use) than for NRT.18,19

In recent years, many ACCHSs and their government funders have increased their focus on, and directed significant resources towards, tobacco control and cessation support. Our finding of greater use of SSMs by smokers whose local ACCHS had dedicated tobacco control resources provides some evidence for the effect of these policy decisions. We explore other non-pharmacological cessation support elsewhere in this supplement.20

Early research into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers’ use of SSMs focused on the disincentive of the cost of NRT, and interventions to subsidise or provide free NRT.21–24 Covering the costs of treatment has been demonstrated to increase the use of NRT and bupropion in other contexts.25,26 Following policy changes, we found that nearly three-quarters of participants had got their most recent NRT at no cost, removing this financial impediment to its use. Unlike earlier research, cost was rarely given as a reason in our survey for not intending to use NRT or SSMs in the future.21,23 While some smokers are still paying a proportion of the cost, it is reassuring that policies to provide access to free NRT seem to be effectively reaching many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers.

It is encouraging that a similar proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers as those in the broader Australian population think these medicines assist cessation. Further, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who were more dependent were more likely than the less dependent to have used them, in accordance with current clinical guidelines. However, there is still opportunity to improve their use. The clinical guidelines can be better promoted during the training and ongoing education of clinicians and tobacco control workers, to enable more frequent discussion about them with smokers. There remains a large proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who have never used these medicines, are less likely to think they help and less likely to use them in the future, who could be informed about their effectiveness in assisting quitting.27

The frequent use of NRT for much less than the recommended 8 weeks is similar to earlier reports in this population; likewise, the median duration was similar to those found in other research in Australia and elsewhere, particularly the shorter durations reported when NRT is available over the counter rather than by prescription.22,28–31 Research into the common reasons for stopping NRT and SSMs (resuming smoking, side effects and the belief that it has already worked) suggests that these are generally legitimate and may not be cause for great concern. For example, data from other ITC Project surveys show that 66% of those who stopped early because they believed that they no longer needed the medication were still abstinent at 6 months.30

There has been a significant increase in the use of SSMs in Australia in recent years, especially associated with the release of varenicline in 2008.32 The release of new varieties of NRT and other SSMs has also been shown to be associated with this increase in the total use of SSMs, often with very little compensatory decline in the use of older medicines.19,26,32 We found that a variety of types of NRT were used (most commonly patches), as well as varenicline and a small amount of bupropion. The range of NRT formulations and other medicines is likely to increase in the future.3 The potential impact of e-cigarettes as an aid to cessation remains unclear and contested.33,34

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of our study is its large national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, providing the first detailed national information about the use of NRT and SSMs in this population. However, it is a non-random, albeit broadly representative, sample, and caution is needed in interpreting the comparisons with the Australian ITC Project sample and in generalising the results to the whole Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. The use of NRT or SSMs in our sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in communities served by ACCHSs may be different to that in communities without access to an ACCHS, who use private general practices. Our self-reported data are probably limited by incomplete recall of past use of NRT and SSMs and quit attempts. The effect of these biases will be to weaken reported associations, leading to greater confidence in the significant associations but requiring caution in the implications of findings of no association.

1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs)

Ever used NRT or SSMs

Used NRT or SSMs in the past year

Smoking characteristic

% (frequency)*

Odds ratio (95% CI)†

P‡

% (frequency)*

Odds ratio (95% CI)†

P‡

Smokers and recent ex-smokers (n = 1721)

Smoking status

Daily smokers

37% (515)

1.0

< 0.001

23% (318)

1.0

0.001

Non-daily smokers

17% (43)

0.35 (0.24–0.51)

12% (30)

0.46 (0.29–0.73)

Recent ex-smokers§

36% (28)

0.94 (0.57–1.55)

32% (25)

1.59 (0.95–2.66)

Daily smokers only (n = 1369)

Heaviness of Smoking Index score

Low (0–1)

30% (69)

1.0

< 0.001

18% (42)

1.0

0.06

Moderate (2–3)

36% (284)

1.34 (1.00–1.81)

23% (184)

1.39 (0.92–2.08)

Heavy (4–6)

45% (148)

1.98 (1.42–2.76)

27% (86)

1.65 (1.08–2.51)

RACGP criteria for dependence¶

None

24% (38)

1.0

< 0.001

13% (20)

1.0

< 0.001

One

27% (91)

1.23 (0.78–1.92)

17% (55)

1.38 (0.84–2.28)

Two

35% (192)

1.71 (1.12–2.61)

21% (118)

1.89 (1.11–3.22)

All three

59% (193)

4.66 (2.99–7.27)

39% (125)

4.39 (2.56–7.51)

RACGP = Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. * Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests. § Those who had quit ≤ 12 months before. ¶ Time to first cigarette ≤ 30 min, > 10 cigarettes per day, and withdrawal symptoms on previous quit attempts (strong cravings during most recent quit attempt).

2 Use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) by dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers,* by sociodemographic factors (n = 1124)

	Ever used NRT or SSMs			Used NRT or SSMs in the past year
Sociodemographic factor	% (frequency)†	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	% (frequency)†	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§

All dependent smokers	39% (432)			24% (270)
Age (years)			0.002			0.08
18–24	28% (59)	1.0		18% (39)	1.0
25–34	35% (102)	1.43 (0.98–2.08)		23% (67)	1.35 (0.91–2.02)
35–44	40% (112)	1.78 (1.12–2.83)		24% (65)	1.37 (0.85–2.23)
45–54	44% (86)	2.07 (1.29–3.33)		29% (55)	1.78 (1.12–2.83)
≥ 55	53% (73)	3.00 (1.79–5.01)		32% (44)	2.13 (1.25–3.64)
Sex			0.18			0.11
Female	41% (233)	1.0		27% (150)	1.0
Male	36% (199)	0.80 (0.58–1.11)		22% (120)	0.77 (0.55–1.07)
Indigenous status			0.14			0.76
Aboriginal	40% (398)	1.0		25% (245)	1.0
Torres Strait Islander or both	31% (34)	0.70 (0.44–1.12)		23% (25)	0.93 (0.56–1.52)
Labour force status			< 0.001			0.02
Employed	45% (166)	1.0		29% (105)	1.0
Unemployed	30% (113)	0.51 (0.38–0.70)		20% (76)	0.62 (0.45–0.86)
Not in labour force	41% (151)	0.85 (0.64–1.14)		24% (88)	0.80 (0.56–1.14)
Highest education attained			0.001			0.03
Less than Year 12	35% (206)	1.0		21% (127)	1.0
Finished Year 12	38% (109)	1.18 (0.88–1.58)		26% (73)	1.28 (0.92–1.78)
Post-school qualification	50% (115)	1.90 (1.36–2.67)		30% (68)	1.58 (1.12–2.23)
Treated unfairly because Indigenous in past year			0.01			0.02
No	43% (207)	1.0		28% (135)	1.0
Yes	35% (214)	0.71 (0.54–0.92)		21% (129)	0.68 (0.50–0.93)
Remoteness			0.002			0.03
Major cities	43% (127)	1.0		29% (85)	1.0
Inner and outer regional	41% (239)	0.94 (0.60–1.47)		25% (141)	0.80 (0.53–1.20)
Remote and very remote	27% (66)	0.50 (0.31–0.80)		18% (44)	0.54 (0.34–0.86)
Area-level disadvantage			0.03			0.02
1st quintile (most disadvantaged)	33% (141)	1.0		19% (81)	1.0
2nd and 3rd quintiles	41% (189)	1.40 (1.01–1.94)		27% (122)	1.54 (1.09–2.17)
4th and 5th quintiles	45% (102)	1.64 (1.07–2.51)		30% (67)	1.78 (1.10–2.87)
Local health service has dedicated tobacco control resources			0.006			0.003
No	31% (97)	1.0		18% (57)	1.0
Yes	42% (335)	1.66 (1.16–2.37)		27% (213)	1.70 (1.20–2.39)

* Daily smokers with Heaviness of Smoking Index scores ≥ 2. † Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. ‡ Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. § P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers’ beliefs about whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) help smokers to quit*

	Do you think NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit?
Smoker characteristics	Very much	Somewhat	Not at all	Don’t know or haven’t heard of them	P†

Smokers and recent ex-smokers (n = 1721)	20% (337)	51% (867)	16% (274)	14% (234)‡
Ever used NRT or SSMs					< 0.001
Yes	31% (179)	55% (324)	9% (50)	5% (32)
No	14% (158)	48% (541)	20% (223)	18% (196)
Used NRT or SSMs in the past year					< 0.001
Yes	35% (132)	53% (197)	7% (27)	5% (17)
No	15% (203)	50% (659)	19% (245)	16% (211)
Smoking status					0.2
Daily smokers	19% (268)	51% (700)	16% (218)	14% (197)
Non-daily smokers	18% (45)	53% (132)	18% (44)	12% (30)
Recent ex-smokers§	31% (24)	45% (35)	15% (12)	9% (7)
Daily smokers only (n = 1383)
Heaviness of Smoking Index score					0.007
Low (0–1)	17% (39)	49% (115)	14% (33)	20% (46)
Moderate (2–3)	20% (161)	53% (416)	14% (112)	13% (103)
Heavy (4–6)	19% (61)	46% (149)	22% (70)	14% (45)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer, except for whether NRT and SSMs help, which do include those answering “don’t know”. † P values were calculated using the χ2 test adjusted for sampling design. ‡ Comprises 19 smokers and recent ex-smokers who had not heard of NRT and SSMs, and 215 who did not know if they helped smokers to quit. § Those who had quit ≤ 12 months before.

4 Interest in using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) to help quit smoking in the future among dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers* (n = 1124)

	Interested in using NRT in the future					Interested in using SSMs in the future
	% (frequency)†			Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	% (frequency)†			Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§
Variable	Yes	No	Don’t know	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	Yes	No	Don’t know	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§

All dependent smokers	54% (608)	41% (462)	4% (47)			51% (575)	42% (470)	7% (73)
Think NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit					< 0.001					< 0.001
Not at all	24% (43)	73% (132)	4% (7)	1.0		23% (42)	74% (134)	3% (6)	1.0
Somewhat	59% (335)	37% (211)	3% (19)	4.87 (3.19–7.45)		58% (325)	37% (209)	5% (31)	4.96 (3.18–7.73)
Very much	80% (177)	18% (40)	2% (4)	13.58 (8.29–22.26)		74% (164)	23% (51)	3% (7)	10.26 (6.3–16.7)
Don’t know or haven’t heard of them	36% (53)	53% (78)	11% (17)			30% (44)	51% (75)	20% (29)
Ever used NRT or SSMs					< 0.001					< 0.001
No	48% (352)	48% (354)	5% (34)	1.0		48% (461)	46% (438)	6% (62)	1.0
Yes	69% (255)	29% (106)	2% (8)	2.42 (1.82–3.22)		75% (112)	21% (31)	4% (6)	3.43 (2.22–5.31)
Used NRT or SSMs in the past year					< 0.001					< 0.001
No	49% (427)	46% (401)	5% (41)	1.0		49% (499)	45% (454)	6% (65)	1.0
Yes	74% (176)	25% (60)	1% (2)	2.75 (1.95–3.90)		78% (72)	17% (16)	4% (4)	4.09 (2.21–7.57)
Heaviness of Smoking Index score					0.05					< 0.001
Moderate (2–3)	56% (446)	39% (311)	4% (34)	1.0		53% (418)	41% (323)	6% (51)	1.0
Heavy (4–6)	50% (162)	46% (151)	4% (13)	0.75 (0.56–0.99)		48% (157)	45% (147)	7% (22)	0.83 (0.62–1.09)

* Daily smokers with Heaviness of Smoking Index scores ≥ 2. † Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer, except for questions on future interest in NRT or SSM use and whether they help in quitting, which include those answering “don’t know”. ‡ Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. § P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

Inappropriate pathology ordering and pathology stewardship

To the Editor: We commend Spelman’s insightful discussion of the need for pathology stewardship.1

The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) advocates a structured approach underpinned by national standards, aimed at minimising harm to patients as well as reducing laboratory and hospital costs. The College recommends hospital pathology stewardship programs with multidisciplinary input; harmonisation of testing and reporting; electronic decision support systems; educational strategies; and collection and analysis of national and state data.

Within this advocacy framework, the RCPA has led or collaborated on many projects relating to harmonisation, standardisation and structuring of reports, consumer benefits and risks, effective communication of results, point-of-care testing, quality of genetic testing (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pathology-qupp-index), and a free online educational tool for doctors (http://investigate.med.unsw.edu.au/home.jsf). The College advocates and advises on pathology rotations for junior doctors.

The RCPA Manual (http://www.rcpa.edu.au/Library/Practising-Pathology/RCPA-Manual/Home) provides decision support tools and comprehensive guidance on use and interpretation of pathology investigations.

While these initiatives will promote quality use of pathology, we stress that coordinated support from major national institutions is needed to effect real change.

Smoking cessation advice and non-pharmacological support in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of smoking-related death, with greater benefits from quitting at a younger age.1 Receiving brief advice to quit from health professionals and more intensive support from specialist clinics and courses, stop-smoking medicines, telephone quitlines, websites and printed materials have been shown to increase successful quitting.2–8 In Australia, just over half of smokers have been recently advised to quit, and a similar proportion of those who have tried to quit have used stop-smoking medicines.9,10 Fewer smokers are referred to or use other cessation support services.9–11

In 2012–2013, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults had 2.5 times the smoking prevalence of other Australian adults, and those who had ever smoked were less likely to have successfully quit (37% v 63%).12 There is a long history of widespread training in how to give brief advice for health professionals working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.13 In recent years, the national Tackling Indigenous Smoking program has increased funding to support this training, enhancement of the telephone Quitline service to be more culturally appropriate, and other local cessation support activities.14

Here, we describe recall among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers of having received advice to quit smoking and referral to non-pharmacological cessation support from health professionals, and examine the association of advice and referrals with making a quit attempt. We examine the use of stop-smoking medicines elsewhere in this supplement.15

Methods

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 1643 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and 78 recent ex-smokers (who had quit ≤ 12 months before), using a quota sampling design based on the communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait. It has been described in detail elsewhere.16,17 Briefly, the 35 sites were selected based on the distribution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population by state or territory and remoteness. In 30 sites, we aimed to interview 50 smokers or recent ex-smokers and 25 non-smokers, with equal numbers of women and men, and those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. In four large city sites and the Torres Strait community, the sample sizes were doubled. People were excluded if they were aged under 18 years, not usual residents of the area, staff of the ACCHS or deemed unable to complete the survey. In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, although not random, sample.

We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had seen a health professional in the past year and, if so, whether they had been asked if they smoke and, if so, whether they had been encouraged to quit. We asked those who had been encouraged to quit about pamphlets or referrals to the Quitline, quit-smoking websites, or quit courses or clinics they had received. We also asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had sought out these services themselves, and about quit attempts and sociodemographic factors. At each site, we asked questions about tobacco control funding and staff positions to determine if the health service had resources dedicated to tobacco control. The questions reported here are described in detail in Appendix 1.

The TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) collaboration. Interview questions were closely based on those in ITC Project surveys, especially the Australian surveys.18 TATS project results were compared with those of 1412 daily smokers newly recruited to Waves 5–8 (2006–2011) of the Australian ITC Project. The ITC Project survey was conducted by random digit telephone dialling. We only used data from the newly recruited participants as questions for recontacted participants referred to advice received since the previous survey rather than in the past year. Slightly different definitions of smokers between the TATS project and ITC Project surveys meant that only daily and weekly smoker categories were directly comparable. We concentrated our comparisons on daily smokers. We have also concentrated our other descriptions of recall of advice and associations between variables within the TATS sample on daily smokers.

Statistical analyses

We calculated the percentages and frequencies of responses to the TATS project questions, but did not include confidence intervals for these as it is not considered statistically acceptable to estimate sampling error in non-probabilistic samples. We compared results for daily smokers with those in the Australian ITC Project surveys, which were directly standardised to the distribution of age and sex of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers reported in the 2008 NATSISS.

Within the TATS project sample, we assessed the association between variables using simple logistic regression, with confidence intervals adjusted for the sampling design, using the 35 sites as clusters and the age–sex quotas as strata in Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands.19 P values were calculated using adjusted Wald tests.

Reported percentages and frequencies exclude those refusing to answer or answering “don’t know”, leading to minor variations in denominators between questions. Less than 2% of daily smokers answered “don’t know” or refused to answer each of the questions analysed here.

Results

Three-quarters of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers (76%) reported having seen a health professional in the past year (Box 1). Of these, 93% said they were asked if they smoked, and 75% also reported being advised to quit. These proportions are higher than those among Australian daily smokers in the ITC Project.

Within the TATS project sample, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit by a health professional had twice the odds of having made a quit attempt in the past year, compared with those who did not recall being advised to quit (Box 2).

The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit increased with age and was higher among women, those with post-school qualifications and those whose local health service had dedicated tobacco control resources; the proportion was lower among the unemployed (Box 3). There was more sociodemographic variation in having seen a health professional than in recalling being advised to quit (Appendix 2).

Among all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers who were advised to quit, 49% were given a pamphlet or brochure on how to quit, and lower proportions were referred to the telephone Quitline (28%), a quit-smoking website (27%) or a local quit course, group or clinic (16%) (Box 4). Most of those who received pamphlets said they read them (70%, 321/457), but lower proportions reported following up on other referrals. Daily smokers who were referred to each resource were non-significantly more likely to have made a quit attempt in the past year than those who had been advised to quit but not referred (Box 2). We also found that 13% of smokers and recent ex-smokers (215/1696) had sought out quit information or services themselves, and that 62% (1047/1692) had been encouraged by family or friends to quit or to maintain a quit attempt.

A higher proportion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit by a health professional in the past year had been given a pamphlet, compared with other Australian daily smokers in the ITC Project (50% [390/778] v 29.6% [95% CI, 25.4%–34.3%]).

Discussion

Daily smokers in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample were more likely than those in the broader Australian ITC Project sample to recall having been advised to quit by a health professional in the past year. This was in part due to being more likely to have been seen by a health professional, but mainly due to a greater proportion of those seen being advised to quit.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is its large, nationally representative sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers. However, the sample was not random and there were some sociodemographic differences compared with a random sample of the population.16

Our survey was conducted face to face, whereas the comparison Australian ITC Project surveys were conducted by telephone, potentially leading to differential social desirability bias. Further, some ITC Project surveys were conducted much earlier than the TATS project survey, and although many questions were identical on both surveys, the order and structure of the comparison ITC Project questionnaire was different. While we are confident that the large difference in recall of health professional advice between the TATS project and ITC Project samples is real, we have not described the differences in referral to cessation support as, except for the question about pamphlets, the questions were not directly comparable.

The main limitation of our study is that partnering with ACCHSs to recruit participants may have led to a selection bias towards people with closer connections to the health services, inflating the percentage who recalled being seen by a health professional. However, this percentage was similar to that reported in the 2004–2005 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey.16 We also report a higher prevalence of having received advice among only those who had seen a health professional, which would be less affected by this bias. Our results are also based on patient recall, not clinical records. Australian general practice research has found that clinical records poorly record health advice and poorly agree with patient recall of referrals to other cessation services.10 Some patients will have misremembered or forgotten advice and referrals they received, but we would expect that advice and referrals that were useful for quitting would be more likely to be remembered.

Comparisons with other studies

The proportion of smokers who had seen a health professional and recalled being asked if they smoke was similar to that among a sample of pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who smoked, who were only slightly more likely to be advised to quit (81% of pregnant smokers v 75% of daily smokers in our sample).20

SmokeCheck, a commonly used training program to increase health professionals’ skills in giving brief quit-smoking advice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, has been shown to improve participants’ confidence in regularly providing brief advice.21,22 The long history of such training programs, along with support for and promotion of brief interventions in ACCHSs, may have contributed to advice being given more often to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers than other smokers.

We found that the likelihood of receiving advice to quit from health professionals increased with participant age, as in earlier Australian ITC Project research.9 Most of the focus of chronic disease prevention is on older patients, but there is an opportunity to increase the provision of advice about smoking to younger patients.

Our finding that a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers recalled receiving this advice is encouraging, as even brief advice from a doctor increases cessation, with minimal additional benefit from more extensive advice or follow-up.2 Provision of brief advice is achievable even in very busy primary care settings and, as we found, can reach most of the population. In both urban and remote settings, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interviewees in qualitative research have emphasised that advice and support from health professionals was a significant factor in their quit attempts.23–25 Consistent with this, we found that recalling advice from a health professional to quit was associated with making a quit attempt. While it is possible that making an attempt may increase the likelihood of advice being recalled, or may have led to making a visit to a health professional, it seems reasonable to conclude that advice from health professionals is contributing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers’ motivation to try to quit.

The frequent use of pamphlets by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers is positive but not likely to have much impact on cessation, as the additional effect of such printed material is only modest.6 In contrast, Cochrane reviews show a greater effect on cessation of telephone quitlines, more intensive individual counselling outside primary care, and quit groups.4,7,8 Currently, evidence for internet-based quit support is inconsistent but promising.5

A meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed intensive cessation counselling programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers were effective in increasing cessation.26 We found that most people who attended special cessation programs said they were specifically designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Quitlines can be a cost-effective element in cessation support, but there has been a perception of distrust and low usage of quitlines by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.13 In 2010, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander callers to the Quitline in South Australia received fewer calls back and were less likely to have successfully quit than non-Indigenous callers.27 Since then, the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program has funded activity to improve the appropriateness and accessibility of the Quitline.

These non-pharmacological cessation support options benefit smokers who use them, but we found that most do not, as has been found in other contexts.9–11 Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian research has shown that many smokers see using cessation support as a sign of weakness and lack of willpower, which is a challenge in promoting these evidence-based services.24,28

1 Daily smokers’ recall of receiving advice to quit when seeing a health professional in the past year*

Australian ITC Project, % (95% CI)†

TATS project, % (frequency)‡

Seen a health professional

68.1% (64.8%–71.1%)

76% (1047)

Of those seen

Asked if he/she smokes§

—

93% (968)

Advised to quit

56.2% (52.3%–59.9%)

75% (782)

ITC Project = International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. TATS = Talking About The Smokes. * Percentages and frequencies exclude refused responses and “don’t know” responses. † Results are for daily smokers (n = 1412) newly recruited to Waves 5–8 of the Australian ITC Project (2006–2011) and were age- and sex-standardised to smokers in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey. ‡ Results are for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers (n = 1377) in the baseline sample of the TATS project (April 2012 – October 2013). § Not asked in the Australian ITC Project.

2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who made a quit attempt in the past year, by recall of being advised to quit and referred to cessation support

	Attempted to quit in the past year
	% (frequency)*	Odds ratio (95% CI)†	P‡

All daily smokers (n = 1354)
Advised to quit by a health professional in the past year			< 0.001
No	39% (223)	1.0
Yes	56% (433)	2.00 (1.58–2.52)
If advised to quit by a health professional in the past year (n = 777)§
Given a pamphlet			0.053
No	52% (203)	1.0
Yes	60% (230)	1.34 (1.00–1.79)
Referred to telephone Quitline			0.15
No	55% (306)	1.0
Yes	60% (125)	1.25 (0.92–1.68)
Referred to quit-smoking website			0.48
No	55% (305)	1.0
Yes	58% (121)	1.13 (0.80–1.6)
Referred to quit course, group or clinic			0.19
No	55% (357)	1.0
Yes	61% (73)	1.30 (0.88–1.92)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values calculated using adjusted Wald tests. § Only participants who recalled being advised to quit by a health professional were asked about referral to cessation support resources.

3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who recalled being advised to quit by a health professional in the past year, by sociodemographic factors (n = 1366)

	Advised to quit by a health professional
Characteristic	% (frequency)*	Odds ratio (95% CI)†	P‡

Total	57% (782)
Age (years)			0.001
18–24	48% (136)	1.0
25–34	55% (203)	1.29 (0.93–1.79)
35–44	58% (188)	1.47 (1.01–2.16)
45–54	62% (145)	1.72 (1.15–2.57)
≥ 55	71% (110)	2.61 (1.67–4.06)
Sex			0.003
Male	52% (342)	1.0
Female	62% (440)	1.50 (1.15–1.95)
Indigenous status			0.74
Aboriginal	57% (694)	1.0
Torres Strait Islander or both	59% (88)	1.07 (0.73–1.56)
Labour force status			< 0.001
Unemployed	48% (226)	1.0
Not in labour force	65% (273)	2.00 (1.47–2.71)
Employed	59% (282)	1.57 (1.20–2.05)
Highest education attained			0.007
Less than Year 12	54% (380)	1.0
Finished Year 12	57% (206)	1.17 (0.91–1.51)
Post-school qualification	66% (194)	1.72 (1.23–2.41)
Treated unfairly because Indigenous in past year			0.72
No	58% (342)	1.0
Yes	57% (423)	0.96 (0.75–1.22)
Remoteness			0.33
Major cities	54% (194)	1.0
Inner and outer regional	60% (430)	1.25 (0.86–1.81)
Remote and very remote	54% (158)	0.98 (0.64–1.52)
Area-level disadvantage			0.18
1st quintile (most disadvantaged)	55% (285)	1.0
2nd and 3rd quintiles	61% (357)	1.28 (0.94–1.74)
4th and 5th quintiles	54% (140)	0.97 (0.68–1.38)
Local health service has dedicated tobacco control resources			0.05
No	52% (207)	1.0
Yes	60% (575)	1.38 (1.00–1.91)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values calculated for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who recalled receiving or being referred to cessation support resources when advised to quit by a health professional (n = 960)*

	Pamphlet	Quit-smoking website	Telephone Quitline	Quit course, group or clinic

Received information or a referral	49% (460)	27% (252)	28% (266)	16% (149)
If so, read, used or attended it	70% (321)	22% (54)	16% (43)	44% (65)
If so, it was specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples	52% (168)	48% (26)	44% (18)	88% (56)

* Data only include smokers and recent ex-smokers who recalled being advised by a health professional to quit. Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer.

Recall of anti-tobacco advertising and information, warning labels and news stories in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers

Television advertisements and warning labels on tobacco products are the most commonly cited sources of information on the dangers of smoking.1,2 There is good evidence that messages about the harms of smoking increase knowledge, worry about health risks, attempts to quit, and even quit success.3–7 These messages aim to either change pro-smoking attitudes and intentions or strengthen those that support quitting.8

Smoking is the leading cause of sickness and death among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.9 To tackle this, funding was established in 2009 for community-led programs that raise awareness, provide education and challenge norms about smoking.10 Australia also launched its first national Indigenous Anti-Smoking Campaign (“Break the Chain”) in March 2011.11 These targeted programs ran alongside the National Tobacco Campaign, state and territory campaigns, and other sources of information, such as news media. In addition, plain packaging of tobacco products, with new and larger warning labels, was mandated from 1 December 2012.12

Some experts doubt the effectiveness of mainstream messages in reducing smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.13 While culturally relevant messages are preferred,14 mainstream media campaigns achieve high recall,15–17 including in remote areas.17,18 Here, we describe recall of anti-tobacco advertising and information (mainstream and targeted), pack warning labels and news stories among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, and assess the association of these messages with attitudes that support quitting.

Methods

Survey design and participants

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 1643 current smokers from April 2012 to October 2013 (Wave 1, or baseline), and has been described in detail elsewhere.19,20 Briefly, we used a quota sampling design to recruit participants from communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait (project sites), which were selected based on the population distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by state or territory and remoteness. In most sites (30/35), we aimed to interview a sample of 50 smokers or recent quitters (ex-smokers who had quit ≤ 12 months previously), with even numbers of men and women, and people aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. The sample size was doubled in four large city sites and in the Torres Strait community. People were excluded if they did not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, were under 18 years of age, were not usual residents of the area, were staff of the ACCHS, were unable to complete the survey in English if there was no interpreter available, or if the quota for the relevant age–sex–smoking category had been filled. In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, albeit non-random, sample.

Interviews were conducted face to face by trained interviewers, almost all of whom were members of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The survey, entered directly onto a computer tablet, took 30–60 minutes to complete. A single survey of health service activities was also completed for each project site.

The baseline sample closely matched the sample distribution of the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) by age, sex, jurisdiction and remoteness, and by number of cigarettes smoked per day for current daily smokers. However, there were inconsistent differences in some socioeconomic indicators: our sample had higher proportions of unemployed people, but also higher proportions who had completed Year 12 and who lived in more advantaged areas.19

Questions on health information exposure

As the TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project), survey questions were based on ITC Project survey questions and are presented in Appendix 1. How often respondents noticed warning labels (in the past month), anti-tobacco news stories (in the past 6 months) and anti-tobacco advertising or information (in the past 6 months) was assessed on a five-point scale ranging from “never” to “very often”, which was later collapsed to three categories (never, sometimes, often).

Smokers who said they had never noticed advertising or information (hereafter collectively referred to as advertising) in the past 6 months were not asked further related questions. Smokers who had noticed advertising were asked whether it was on: television, radio, the internet, outdoor billboards, newspapers or magazines, shops or stores, pamphlets, and posters in various locations (yes or no). Those who recalled noticing advertising in the past 6 months were also asked whether any had featured an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person or artwork (“targeted advertising”) and, if so, whether any featured an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person or artwork from the local community (“local advertising”). We combined these responses to create the variable “type of advertising”, which categorised smokers as having: never noticed any advertising, noticed mainstream (but no targeted) advertising, noticed some targeted (but no local) advertising, or noticed some local advertising.

Main outcome measures and covariates

There were four main outcomes: believing smoking is dangerous to others (“agree” or “strongly agree” that cigarette smoke is dangerous to both non-smokers and children), being very worried that smoking will damage the smoker’s own health in the future, agreeing that mainstream society disapproves of smoking, and wanting to quit. Additional analyses were conducted on forgoing cigarettes because of warning labels.

Covariates included daily or non-daily smoking status and key sociodemographic indicators (sex, age, identification as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, labour force status, education, remoteness and area-level disadvantage). We also assessed for variation according to tobacco control activity that had occurred at the project site over the previous year (whether there were dedicated tobacco control resources, and the number of media used to communicate anti-tobacco advertising), which was determined in the project site survey.

We also assessed differences in warning label recall before and after plain packaging was mandated (1 December 2012), treating the 3-month phase-in period as “before”.

Statistical analyses

Logistic regression was used to assess: (i) variation in health information recall (often v sometimes or never) by daily smoking status, sociodemographic variables, and tobacco control activity at the project site; (ii) the association between health information recall and the four main outcome measures; and (iii) variation in warning label recall and outcomes before and after plain packaging was mandated. Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands were used to adjust for the sampling design, identifying the 35 project sites as clusters and the quotas (based on age, sex and smoking status) as strata.21

Data for health information recall were excluded for less than 2% of participants due to missing or refused responses, and for less than 2% due to “don’t know” responses. Questions about recall of warning labels were not asked of those who had not smoked in the past month (n = 44), nor those surveyed at the first project site (n = 26), after which questions were modified. These participants were therefore excluded from logistic regression analyses, which controlled for recall of each other type of health information, survey month (collapsed into 2-month blocks), daily smoking status and other sociodemographic covariates. Regression analyses for wanting to quit excluded a further 4.8% of smokers who responded “don’t know” to this question.

Results

Recall of health information

Of smokers who were asked about warning labels, 65% (1015/1557) said they had often noticed warning labels in the past month (Box 1). This was higher than the proportion of all smokers who recalled often noticing anti-tobacco advertising (45%; 730/1606) or news stories (24%; 386/1601) in the past 6 months.

Frequent recall of health information was similar for daily and non-daily smokers (Appendix 2). Fewer men than women reported often noticing warning labels (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51–0.90) and news stories (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–1.00). While smokers from remote areas were less likely than those in major cities to recall often noticing advertising (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37–0.84), they were more likely to recall often noticing news stories (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.18–2.79) and did not differ for recall of warning labels. Being from an area where the health service used a greater range of advertising media was associated with noticing it more often, with ORs increasing from 2.02 (95% CI, 1.15–3.57) for 5–8 media to 3.17 (95% CI, 1.84–5.46) for 9–12 media, compared with areas that used four or fewer media.

Associations with attitudes and wanting to quit

Recall of warning labels, advertising and news stories was positively associated with being very worried about future health and wanting to quit (Box 2). Only advertising recall was positively associated with believing society disapproves of smoking. For each outcome, the magnitude of ORs increased for those who recalled more targeted and local advertising, although this association was only significant for believing cigarette smoke is dangerous to others and wanting to quit.

Outcomes for warning labels before and after plain packaging

Compared with smokers surveyed in the period before plain packaging, those surveyed after its introduction were similarly likely to recall noticing warning labels but had higher odds for believing the labels made them more likely to quit (OR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.02–1.82) (Appendix 3). Smokers who had noticed warning labels in the past month were more likely to say these labels led them to forgo at least one cigarette after plain packaging compared with before it (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.14–2.09). Further, those who said warning labels led them to forgo at least one cigarette were more likely to want to quit (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.63–5.29) (data not shown).

Discussion

Advertising and information

We found high levels of recall of anti-tobacco advertising and information, particularly for television campaigns and local health promotion materials, which is likely to have been boosted by the community-led tobacco control activity that occurred over the survey period. However, even with this heightened activity, smokers from remote areas were less likely to say they often noticed advertising, consistent with trends for national mass media exposure.22 Recall of mass media advertising has been shown to increase with broadcast intensity,23–25 which is fundamental to achieving good reach among smokers of low socioeconomic status.6,25–27 Broadcast intensity is also important for influencing quitting activity and success.5,6,22,25,28,29

It is notable that targeted and local advertising was associated with higher levels of motivation to quit, a novel finding as far as we are aware. In part, targeted campaigns may be more memorable purely because of the interest in their targeted or local nature,30 which could be expected to weaken the observed relationship with wanting to quit. On the contrary, our results show the association increased in magnitude for recall of more targeted and local information, which suggests it is more potent than mainstream advertising. This finding is supported by analyses presented elsewhere in this supplement.31 While it is possible that the observed relationship could be due to higher exposure to all types of advertising, it remained significant irrespective of how often advertising was noticed.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples perceive targeted messages to be more relevant and effective,14,15,30 which may affect the influence of these messages on relevant attitudes. Among Maori people in New Zealand, culturally relevant campaigns have been shown to prompt discussions about smoking32 — an indirect effect of advertising that increases interest in quitting.33 While there is clear justification for targeted messages, together with emerging evidence regarding their benefit, consideration must also be given to whether this strategy is an effective use of scarce resources.34

Elsewhere, attitudes and intentions have been found to be most strongly influenced by advertising that evokes an emotional response, such as graphic or story-based messages.6,25,35 Such messages are rated highly by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians alike,14 and may also be an effective way to reduce disparities in quitting.36 How to best balance mainstream and targeted (including locally led) advertising will be an important area for future research.

Warning labels

We found that forgoing cigarettes was strongly associated with wanting to quit, as has been found in other settings,37,38 and that smokers were more likely to forgo cigarettes in the period after plain packaging was mandated than before. Although our before and after samples were not in any way random, the evidence is supportive of health warnings and plain packaging playing a role in maintaining concern about smoking. This is one of the aims of Australia’s plain packaging legislation, which increased the size of graphic warning labels, stripped all branding and regulated a drab brown pack colour.12

There is recent evidence that plain packaging increases the salience and effectiveness of health warnings.39–41 Our findings confirm these findings in a minority population with a high smoking prevalence. Further, our finding that warning label recall was not socially patterned adds to scarce evidence on the socioeconomic impacts of graphic pack warning labels, which has been identified as an international priority for tobacco control research.6,42

News stories

Frequent recall of news stories was related to higher levels of worry about health and interest in quitting, which supports previous findings that news items can complement paid sources of communication.6,43 We found no evidence of a social gradient in recall of news stories; in fact, they were more likely to be noticed often by smokers from remote areas. Online platforms to share and discuss news could play an important role here, and have been used effectively for Aboriginal tobacco control news and advocacy efforts.44 Local stories and those about leaders and other role models may be particularly influential.45,46

Strengths and limitations

This article draws on data from a broadly representative national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers. The size of the sample has enabled us to consider subgroup analyses based on socioeconomic indicators and other participant characteristics, including remoteness of residence. The frequency at which health promotional materials were recalled is likely to have been inflated by biased recruitment of project sites that prioritised tobacco control and of participants who were more connected to the health service. Although this means we cannot generalise results about how often different types of advertising and information were recalled, it does not compromise the findings on whether more frequent recall is associated with relevant attitudes and intentions.

The main limitation of our study is its reliance on self-report of awareness. It does not incorporate more objective media market data, as these would not capture some of the local activity and would therefore have been a limited source of information beyond the main media markets. Awareness can be affected by opportunity for exposure, the potency of the material, and the openness of the individual to the message. While it is impossible to separate these entirely, it is possible to infer likely relative contributions. For example, warning labels on packs are roughly equally available (albeit affected by levels of consumption) and are of largely fixed (standardised) potency. Thus, differences in recall and reactions can be largely attributed to the openness of the individual to the label’s message. When assessing associations with attitudes or intentions, we adjusted for noticing other types of health information (to control for variability due to openness) and for socioeconomic indicators (to control for variability due to opportunity for exposure), with the rationale that associations independent of these influences were a better assessment of potency. However, campaign effects are difficult to disentangle from other tobacco control efforts and contextual factors,3 particularly when using cross-sectional data. As such, a multivariable model that considers these factors has been reported in detail elsewhere for the outcome of wanting to quit.31

Finally, we report adjusted analyses, which necessarily exclude a small proportion of smokers who declined to answer questions, answered “don’t know”, had not smoked in the past month or were surveyed at the first project site. While it is possible that the excluded participants differ from those who were included, the same pattern of results was observed for unadjusted associations (where there were fewer exclusions) and where outcomes with a high percentage of “don’t know” responses (eg, wanting to quit) were repeated with “don’t know” recoded as “no”.

With these limitations in mind, we found a clear link between more frequent recall of health information and attitudes that support quitting, including wanting to quit. Further research is required to assess whether more targeted information is better able to tap into relevant beliefs and subsequently increase quitting.

1 Exposure to health information in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers*

Health information exposure variables	% (frequency)†

Warning labels (in past month)
How often have you noticed the warning labels on packs your smokes are sold in?
Never	11% (164)
Almost never or sometimes	24% (378)
Often or very often	65% (1015)
Have the warning labels stopped you from having a smoke when about to?
Never noticed warning labels	10% (164)
Noticed warning labels but never stopped	55% (887)
Noticed warning labels and stopped at least once	34% (550)
News stories (in past 6 months)
How often have you seen or heard a news story about smoking or quitting?
Never	30% (477)
Almost never or sometimes	46% (738)
Often or very often	24% (386)
Advertising and information (in past 6 months)
How often have you noticed anti-tobacco advertising or information?
Never	15% (241)
Almost never or sometimes	40% (635)
Often or very often	45% (730)
Noticed any targeted advertising
Yes	48% (783)
No or never noticed advertising	46% (745)
Don’t know	6% (96)
Noticed any local advertising
Yes	16% (258)
No or never noticed mainstream or targeted advertising	74% (1195)
Don’t know	11% (171)
Did you notice advertising or information:‡
On television	82% (1327)
On the radio	43% (690)
On the internet, including social media sites	25% (390)
On outdoor billboards	45% (706)
In newspapers or magazines	47% (751)
On shop windows or in shops where tobacco is sold (at point of sale)	43% (679)
In leaflets or pamphlets	55% (877)
Posters or displays at local health service	74% (1186)
Posters or displays at other Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisation	67% (1051)
Posters or displays at local festival or community event	59% (921)

* Results are from the Talking About The Smokes baseline sample of current smokers (n = 1643, or n = 1573 for questions regarding recall of warning labels). † Except where specified (for targeted and local advertising), percentages and frequencies exclude refused and “don’t know” responses, which accounts for differences in the total. ‡ Results are percentages of all smokers, including those who had never seen advertising or information in the past 6 months.

2 Association of health information exposure with attitudes in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers*

	Believe smoking is dangerous to others		Very worried smoking will damage own health		Believe mainstream society disapproves of smoking		Want to quit smoking
	% (frequency)†	AOR (95% CI)‡	% (frequency)†	AOR (95% CI)‡	% (frequency)†	AOR (95% CI)‡	% (frequency)†	AOR (95% CI)‡

Noticed warning labels (in past month)		P < 0.001		P < 0.001		P = 0.45		P < 0.001
Never	77% (126)	1.0	14% (22)	1.0	58% (95)	1.0	45% (71)	1.0
Sometimes	86% (325)	1.54 (0.93–2.56)	20% (75)	1.41 (0.81–2.44)	55% (209)	1.01 (0.67–1.54)	58% (204)	1.31 (0.82–2.07)
Often	94% (953)	3.56 (2.16–5.86)	44% (442)	3.44 (2.14–5.53)	64% (650)	1.21 (0.80–1.81)	78% (755)	2.90 (1.85–4.52)
Noticed news stories (in past 6 months)		P = 0.12		P = 0.002		P = 0.12		P = 0.03
Never	90% (427)	1.0	25% (118)	1.0	64% (306)	1.0	59% (271)	1.0
Sometimes	91% (668)	0.58 (0.35–0.97)	34% (250)	1.56 (1.16–2.08)	59% (438)	0.75 (0.56–1.00)	71% (491)	1.40 (1.07–1.82)
Often	93% (359)	0.67 (0.37–1.24)	49% (187)	1.84 (1.30–2.61)	66% (254)	0.73 (0.51–1.05)	81% (297)	1.61 (1.05–2.47)
Noticed advertising (in past 6 months)		P = 0.004		P < 0.001		P < 0.001		P = 0.002
Never	82% (197)	1.0	18% (42)	1.0	58% (139)	1.0	48% (112)	1.0
Sometimes	91% (580)	2.26 (1.31–3.88)	29% (179)	1.10 (0.70–1.73)	56% (356)	1.08 (0.74–1.57)	68% (403)	1.57 (1.12–2.18)
Often	94% (684)	2.78 (1.47–5.26)	47% (342)	2.02 (1.29–3.17)	70% (510)	2.07 (1.31–3.27)	79% (548)	2.17 (1.42–3.31)
Type of advertising (in past 6 months)§		P = 0.006		P = 0.25		P = 0.60		P < 0.001
Never noticed any advertising	82% (197)	1.0	18% (42)	1.0	58% (139)	1.0	48% (112)	1.0
Noticed mainstream (but no targeted) advertising	91% (522)	1.94 (1.09–3.46)	32% (181)	1.00 (0.62–1.60)	60% (345)	1.00 (0.67–1.48)	65% (354)	1.27 (0.91–1.78)
Noticed some targeted (but no local) advertising	93% (489)	2.58 (1.39–4.80)	43% (224)	1.15 (0.72–1.83)	66% (347)	1.13 (0.74–1.74)	77% (388)	1.99 (1.30–3.04)
Noticed some local advertising	95% (245)	3.63 (1.58–8.38)	44% (112)	1.34 (0.79–2.27)	66% (170)	1.24 (0.79–1.97)	84% (202)	2.88 (1.76–4.72)

AOR = adjusted odds ratio. * Results are based on the Talking About The Smokes project baseline sample of current smokers who had smoked in the past month (n = 1573). † Percentages and frequencies exclude refused and “don’t know” responses. ‡ AORs are adjusted for daily smoking status, key sociodemographic variables (age, sex, Indigenous status, labour force status, highest level of education, remoteness and area-level disadvantage), noticing other types of health information, and survey month (in 2-month blocks). P values are reported for overall variable significance, using adjusted Wald tests. § In addition to other covariates, analyses for type of advertising are also adjusted for frequency of advertising recall (often v sometimes or never).