Eksplorasi ancaman peringatan kesehatan bergambar pada kemasan rokok

https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.11617

Fahmi Baiquni(1*), Fatwa Sari Tetra Dewi(2), Rendra Widyatama(3)

(1) Departemen Perilaku Kesehatan, Lingkungan dan Kedokteran Sosial, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Departemen Perilaku Kesehatan, Lingkungan dan Kedokteran Sosial, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Program Studi Ilmu Komunikasi, Fakultas Sastra, Budaya dan Komunikasi, Universitas Achmad Dahlan
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Exploration of pictorial health warnings in cigarette packages

Purpose

This study conducted to examine effectiveness of pictorial health warnings in cigarette packages to reduce smoking intention.

Method

A population-based, qualitative study, were used in this study. 20 partisipants were observed and indept-interviewed.

Results

Threats after seeing a picture warnings on cigarette packs is the perception of the dangers of images and feelings of fear, disgust, pity, worry, mediocre. Efficacy after seeing a picture warnings on cigarette packs is the belief of the image and the impact on individuals after viewing images.

Conclusion

Threat of pictorial warnings are not only affected by the warning image itself but also the experience of the viewer and aspects of the warning image such as color, clarity of image, and message content.


Keywords


pictorial warning; extended parrallel process model; smoking warning



References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What You Need To Know About Smoking: Advice From Surgeon General ’ s Reports on Smoking and Health [Internet]. Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking & Health. Atlanta; 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50thanniversary/index.htm#report 
  2. WHO. Tobacco [Internet]. Media Center. 2014 [cited 2015 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/ 
  3. Presiden Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Pemerintah No 109 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengamanan Bahan Yang Mengandung Zat Adiktif Berupa Produk Tembakau Bagi Kesehatan. 109 Tahun 2012 Indonesia; 2012.
  4. Blanton H, Snyder LB, Strauts E, Larson JG. Effect of Graphic Cigarette Warnings on Smoking Intentions in Young Adults. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):1–8. 
  5. Thraser JF, Arillo-Santillan E, Villalobos V, Perez-Hernandez R, Hammond D, Carter J, et al. Can pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages address smoking-related health disparities ? Field experiments in Mexico to assess pictorial warning label content. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:69–80. 
  6. Pepper JK, Cameron LD, Reiter PL, Mcree A, Brewer NT. Non-Smoking 18 Male Adolescents ’ Reactions to Cigarette Warnings. PLoS One. 2013;8(8). 
  7. Hammond D, Thrasher J, Reid JL, Driezen P, Boudreau C, Santilla EA. Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings among Mexican youth and adults : a population-level intervention with potential to reduce tobaccorelated inequities. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:57–67. 
  8. Verde C. For the record. Can Med Assoc J. 2012;184(7):357–9. 
  9. Durkin S, Bayly M, Cotter T, Mullin S, Wakefield M. Potential effectiveness of anti-smoking advertisement types in ten low and middle income countries: do demographics, smoking characteristics and cultural differences matter? Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 2013 Dec [cited 2014 Oct 3];98:204–13. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24331900 
  10. Gore TD, Bracken CC. Testing the Theoretical Design of a Health Risk Message : Reexamining the Major Tenets of the Extended Parallel Process Model. 2005;32(February):27–41. 
  11. Russell JC, Smith S, Novales W, Massi Lindsey LL, Hanson J. Use of the extended parallel processing model to evaluate culturally relevant kernicterus messages. J Pediatr Health Care [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2013 Jan [cited 2014 Oct 29];27(1):33–40. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237614 
  12. Cameron LD, Williams B. Which Images and Features in Graphic Cigarette Warnings Predict Their Perceived Effectiveness ? Findings from an Online Survey of Residents in the UK. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49:639–49. 
  13. Sjoberg L. Specifying factors in radiation risk perception. Skand J Psychol. 2000;41:169–74. 
  14. Bond L, Nolan T. Making sense of perceptions of risk of diseases and vaccinations : a qualitative study combining models of health beliefs , decision-making and risk perception. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(943):1– 14.
  15. Witt JK, Riley MA. Discovering your inner Gibson : Reconciling actionspecific and ecological approaches to perception – action. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014;21:1353–70. 
  16. Laughery KR, Wogalter MS. A three-stage model summarizes product 19 warning and environmental sign research. Saf Sci [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2014 Jan [cited 2014 Oct 27];61:3–10. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925753511000658 
  17. Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2013 Tentang Pencantuman Peringatan Kesehatan dan Informasi Kesehatan Pada Kemasan Produk Tembakau. 28 Tahun 2013 Indonesia; 2013.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.11617

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 444 | views : 600

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2016 Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat ISSN 0215-1936 (PRINT), ISSN: 2614-8412 (ONLINE).

Indexed by:


Web
Analytics Visitor Counter