Fielding R, Chee Y Y, Choi K M, Chu T K, Kato K, Lam S K, Sin K L, Tang K T, Wong H M, Wong K M
Health Behaviour Research Group, Department of Community Medicine Unit for Behavioural Science, Patrick Manson Building (South Wing), The University of Hong Kong, 7, Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China.
J Public Health (Oxf). 2004 Mar;26(1):24-30. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdh118.
We compared the recognition of tobacco brands and ever-smoking rates in young children before (1991) and after (2001) the implementation of cigarette advertising restrictions in Hong Kong and identified continuing sources of tobacco promotion exposure.
A cross-sectional survey of 824 primary school children aged from 8 to 11 (Primary classes 3-4) living in two Hong Kong districts was carried out using self-completed questionnaires examining smoking behaviour and recognition of names and logos from 18 tobacco, food, drink and other brands common in Hong Kong.
Ever-smoking prevalence in 2001 was 3.8 per cent (1991, 7.8 per cent). Tobacco brand recognition rates ranged from 5.3 per cent (Viceroy name) to 72.8 per cent (Viceroy logo). Compared with 1991, in 2001 never-smoker children recognized fewer tobacco brand names and logos: Marlboro logo recognition rate fell by 55.3 per cent. Similar declines were also seen in ever-smoker children, with recognition of the Marlboro logo decreasing 48 per cent. Recognition rates declined amongst both boys and girls. Children from non-smoking families constituted 51 per cent (426) of the sample, whereas 34.5 per cent (284), 8.5 per cent (70), 1.7 per cent (14) and 4.4 per cent (36) of the children had one, two, three or more than three smoking family members at home, respectively. Tobacco brand recognition rates and ever-smoking prevalence were significantly higher among children with smoking family members compared with those without. Among 12 possible sources of exposure to cigarette brand names and logos, retail stalls (75.5 per cent; 622), indirect advertisements (71.5 per cent; 589) and magazines (65.3 per cent; 538) were ranked the most common.
Advertising restrictions in Hong Kong have effectively decreased primary-age children's recognition of tobacco branding. However, these children remain vulnerable to branding, mostly through exposure from family smokers, point-of-sale tobacco advertisement and occasional promotions. Action to curb these is now required.
我们比较了香港实施香烟广告限制之前（1991年）和之后（2001年）年幼儿童对烟草品牌的认知度及曾经吸烟率，并确定了持续存在的烟草促销接触源。
采用自填问卷对居住在香港两个地区的824名8至11岁（小学三至四年级）的小学生进行横断面调查，问卷内容涉及吸烟行为以及对香港常见的18个烟草、食品、饮料和其他品牌的名称及标识的认知。
2001年曾经吸烟的患病率为3.8%（1991年为7.8%）。烟草品牌认知率从5.3%（总督牌香烟名称）到72.8%（总督牌香烟标识）不等。与1991年相比，2001年从不吸烟的儿童认出的烟草品牌名称和标识更少：万宝路标识的认知率下降了55.3%。曾经吸烟的儿童也出现了类似的下降，万宝路标识的认知率下降了48%。男孩和女孩的认知率均有所下降。来自非吸烟家庭的儿童占样本的51%（426名），而分别有34.5%（284名）、8.5%（70名）、1.7%（14名）和4.4%（36名）的儿童家中有一名、两名、三名或三名以上吸烟家庭成员。与没有吸烟家庭成员的儿童相比，有吸烟家庭成员的儿童的烟草品牌认知率和曾经吸烟患病率显著更高。在12种可能接触香烟品牌名称和标识的来源中，零售摊位（75.5%；622个）、间接广告（71.5%；589个）和杂志（65.3%；538个）被列为最常见的来源。
香港的广告限制有效地降低了小学年龄段儿童对烟草品牌的认知度。然而，这些儿童仍然容易受到品牌影响，主要是通过家庭吸烟者、烟草销售点广告和偶尔的促销活动接触到。现在需要采取行动来遏制这些情况。
