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

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.

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.

Smoking is partly motivated by social factors, although the strength of this influence has declined as smoking has become less socially normative in the community.1,2 Social norms have two aspects: social acceptability, or the contexts where the behaviour is accepted, and social desirability, or the extent to which it is valued. Separating the two can be difficult in practice.

Challenging normative beliefs was a focus of community-based programs to reduce the smoking rate and burden of tobacco-related disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,3 as part of the 2009 National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes.4 In particular, these programs tackled the social desirability and acceptability of smoking in contexts where the smoke affects other people. There has been very little published research to guide this approach.

In the broader Australian population, most smokers (86%) agree that society disapproves of smoking,5 which is an indication that smoking is no longer socially acceptable in certain situations. In contrast, the high prevalence of smoking in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (42% in those aged 15 years or older)6 contributes to beliefs that smoking is normal, expected or intergenerational.7–12 This suggests a certain level of acceptability but does not necessarily indicate whether smoking is socially desirable or valued.

The negative impact of tobacco use on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families appears to reduce the desirability of smoking.7 In particular, the importance of protecting others from the harms of second-hand smoke and setting an example to children are said to provide strong motivation to quit.7,13,14 Parents, older relatives, health staff and elders have been identified as important anti-tobacco role models for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth.7–9

However, there is evidence that smoking is also valued within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander networks, among which smoking and sharing tobacco are associated with connectedness, affirmation of cultural identity and the opportunity to talk through problems.7,9,11–13,15,16 The strength of these competing values and their influence on quitting has not been previously investigated.

Here, we describe social normative beliefs about smoking in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and assess the relationship of these beliefs with quitting.

Methods

Survey design and participants

We used data from the Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project, which conducted baseline surveys of 2522 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (1643 current smokers, 311 ex-smokers and 568 never-smokers) from April 2012 to October 2013. The survey design and participants have been described in detail elsewhere.17,18

Briefly, the study 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. These project sites 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 ex-smokers who had quit ≤ 12 months previously) and a smaller sample of 25 non-smokers, with equal numbers of men and women, and those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. The sample sizes were doubled in four major urban sites and the Torres Strait. People were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, were not usual residents of the area, were staff of the ACCHS, or were deemed unable to consent or complete the survey.

In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, albeit non-random, sample. 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 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.17

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 site.

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.

ITC Project comparison sample

The TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) collaboration. Comparisons were made with smokers in the general Australian population using data from the Australian ITC project, which surveyed 1010 daily smokers between September 2011 and February 2012 (Wave 8.5). Participants of the Australian ITC project were recruited by random digit telephone dialling from within strata defined by jurisdiction and remoteness.19 While baseline surveys were completed over the telephone, follow-up surveys could be completed online. Our comparisons are for daily smokers only, due to slightly different definitions of non-daily smokers between the TATS project and ITC Project surveys.

Outcome measures

Survey questions were based on previous Australian ITC Project surveys, but with added questions about specific concerns and in language better reflecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander colloquial speech. Eight questions assessed normative beliefs, all of which used a five-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (plus a “don’t know” response, which was later merged with “neither agree nor disagree”, and a “refused” option, which was excluded from analysis).

Two quit-related outcomes were used: wanting to quit, and having attempted to quit in the past year, which was derived from questions on ever having tried to quit and how long ago the most recent quit attempt occurred. The exact survey questions are presented in Appendix 1.

Statistical analyses

We calculated percentages and frequencies for all normative belief items. ITC Project data were summarised using percentages and 95% confidence intervals, directly standardised to match the age and sex profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers according to the 2008 NATSISS.

For TATS project outcomes, variation by smoking status was investigated with simple logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of each normative belief with wanting and attempting to quit, adjusted for daily smoking status and key sociodemographic variables. Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands were used to adjust for the TATS Project sampling design, identifying the 35 project sites as clusters and the age–sex quotas as strata.20

For questions about normative beliefs, data were excluded for less than 1% of participants due to missing or refused responses. For associations with wanting to quit, we excluded a further 79 smokers (4.8%) who did not know if they wanted to quit; and for associations with quitting in the past year, we excluded 21 (1.3%) who did not know when their last quit attempt occurred (if ever).

Results

Normative beliefs

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers were less likely than those in the general Australian population to perceive that mainstream society disapproves of smoking (62% v 78.5%) (Box 1). Among all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents, higher proportions agreed that society disapproves of smoking than agreed that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders where they live disapprove of smoking (62% v 41%).

While similar proportions of daily and non-daily smokers agreed that mainstream society disapproves of smoking, non-daily smokers were more likely to agree that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders where they live disapprove (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10–2.05; P = 0.01). Close to two-thirds of smokers and recent quitters agreed there are now fewer places where they feel comfortable smoking, with little variation by smoking status. Although a minority of respondents said non-smokers miss out on all the gossip, this belief was more common among non-daily smokers (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01–2.10; P = 0.04) than daily smokers. Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents (90% or more) reported that being a non-smoker sets a good example to children, with no clear difference by smoking status. Finally, there was overwhelming support (80% or higher) for the government doing more to tackle the harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples caused by smoking. This was significantly higher than the level of support for government action among the general Australian population (47.2%).

Few non-smokers said they were excluded by smokers or pressured by smokers to take up smoking (Box 2). Ex-smokers who had stopped smoking within the past year (but not those who had been quit for more than 1 year) were more likely to say they were pressured to smoke (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.09–3.61; P = 0.04) than those who had never smoked.

Relationship between normative beliefs and quitting

Among smokers, all five anti-smoking beliefs were associated with wanting to quit, and all except perceived societal disapproval of smoking were also associated with having attempted to quit in the past year (Box 3). The only pro-smoking belief, that non-smokers miss out on all the gossip or yarning, was not associated with either wanting or attempting to quit.

Discussion

We found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers are less likely than smokers in the broader Australian population to believe that society views smoking as socially unacceptable. This difference is likely to be a product of higher smoking prevalence, but it may also reinforce it — lower perceived social acceptability of smoking was associated with wanting and attempting to quit, as has been found in other settings.21–24 In contrast, personal attitudes towards smoking (regretting starting to smoke, perceiving it to be too expensive, enjoying it, seeing it as an important part of life and smoking for stress management) do not appear to be driving differences in quitting.25

One possible interpretation of this pattern of results is that social norms are more influential in collectivist societies, in which behaviour is shaped to a greater degree by societal than personal needs.24,26,27 There is a growing body of evidence that protecting others provides strong motivation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to quit,7,13,14,28 reflected here in the particular salience and influence of believing non-smokers set a good example to children. Similar findings were reported for Maori and Pacific peoples in the New Zealand ITC Project,26 which recommended greater emphasis on social reasons to quit, such as setting an example to children. For those who work in comprehensive primary health care settings, messages framed in ways that emphasise protecting others are likely to motivate quitting for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who smoke.

However, while this may be a more effective means of motivating people to quit, the implications for sustaining quit attempts are unclear. Current behaviour change theory suggests that quitting may be more difficult to sustain when motivated by social influences (including concern for others), given the likely challenges by internal needs such as biological or psychological dependence.2 General practitioners and others who provide cessation help should not discount the possibility that more dependent smokers may require support to manage cravings or urges to smoke upon quitting. Sustaining a quit attempt in the face of additional challenges, some of which are specific to the context of quitting for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, is an important area for future research.29

Our finding that quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers appears to be more influenced by their perceptions that local community leaders disapprove of smoking than by disapproval by mainstream society is important. In other settings, norms from significant others are more influential on cigarette consumption and motivation to quit than are mainstream societal norms.24 In this context, significant others may include distant relatives and respected community leaders, who have been described as influential in decisions about starting to smoke among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth.7–9 This offers one explanation for the motivational effect of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, although we were unable to assess whether these constructs overlap.

Further, while the survey measured perceptions about disapproval of smoking by local leaders, our findings nonetheless have implications for tobacco control leadership, and the importance of community leadership in particular. We can draw from examples of indigenous leadership and participation across all areas of tobacco control in New Zealand,30 where strong national and local Maori leadership, targeted messages and Maori approaches are seen as critical for Maori tobacco-free advances.31 There are also an increasing number of examples of community leadership in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tobacco control. A 2012–2013 survey of 47 Australian organisations involved in the development of tobacco control messages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples showed that 32% targeted elders in these messages.32 Social marketing and other strategies that directly involve local community leaders, or shift perceptions about the beliefs of community leaders, offer a means of reinforcing beliefs that smoking is socially unacceptable and therefore strengthening motivation to quit.

We found strong support for government action to tackle the harm caused by smoking. Resistance to tobacco control is therefore not a plausible explanation for differences in quitting between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians. There have been similar findings for other high-prevalence populations.33

Further, while smoking may be considered somewhat more normal among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, we found no evidence of social norms that indicate smoking is strongly socially valued or desirable. In contrast to previous evidence that suggests social isolation of non-smokers contributes to the high smoking prevalence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,7,9,12,13,16 we found that most non-smokers did not feel excluded by smokers or pressured to smoke, or that they missed out on gossip. Further, even among smokers who believed that non-smokers missed out, we found no evidence that this presents a major barrier to quitting activity.

Strengths and limitations

The TATS project dataset provides the first national, broadly representative record of normative beliefs about smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and non-smokers.

However, this study has some limitations. Analyses of associations between normative beliefs and quitting excluded 4.8% of smokers who did not know if they wanted to quit and 1.3% who could not recall how long ago their most recent quit attempt occurred. While this removes uncertainties regarding the categorisation of “don’t know” responses into yes/no outcomes, it also excludes a small proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may differ from included participants.

It is possible that we missed important normative beliefs that have additional influences. In particular, we did not ask specific questions about beliefs of family. This was because the diversity of family structures and a varying tendency to include distant relatives requires more extensive questioning than we had capacity for.

While it is possible that some of the differences found may be due to culturally moderated social desirability biases, we attempted to minimise the potential for this by engaging local interviewers.34 Tobacco control research in other settings suggests that survey responses about wanting to quit are not subject to greater social desirability biases when collected face to face.35

We also stress that the associations presented should not be interpreted as being causal. We cannot determine from these results alone whether negative beliefs about the social acceptability and desirability of smoking motivate quitting, or whether those motivated to quit are more likely to express negative views. While these limitations complicate our interpretations, the hypothesised causal links are strengthened by prospective research in other settings.21–24

Finally, comparisons with ITC Project data must be made with a degree of caution, given differences in methods and timing of recruitment and data collection. However, the differences we report here are too large to be accounted for by these factors.

In conclusion, tobacco control strategies that involve the leadership and participation of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders, particularly strategies that emphasise protection of others, may be an important means of reinforcing beliefs that smoking is socially unacceptable, thus boosting motivation to quit.