The media play a critical role in tobacco control. Knowledge about the exposure of a population to antismoking information can provide information for planning communication activities in tobacco control. We examined exposure to antismoking information associated with socioeconomic and demographic factors among adults (≥15 years) in Vietnam.
The Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) is a nationally representative household survey of noninstitutionalized men and women aged 15 years or older and was conducted in Vietnam in 2010 (N = 9,925). We used GATS data on exposure to sources of antismoking information and analyzed associations among socioeconomic and demographic groups.
An estimated 91.6% of the adult population was exposed to at least 1 source of antismoking information, and the mean number of sources of exposure was 3.7. Compared with their counterparts, respondents who were older, had higher education levels, higher economic status, and higher knowledge levels about the health consequences of smoking were more likely to be exposed to any source of antismoking information and to more informational sources. The most common source of exposure was television (85.9%). Respondents of higher social class (education, occupation, wealth) had more exposure through modern media sources (television), and respondents of lower social class were exposed to more traditional sources such as radio or loudspeakers.
Exposure to at least 1 source of antismoking information is high in Vietnam, and the number and type of source varied by sociodemographic group. Use of multiple communication channels is recommended to reinforce antismoking messages and to reach different groups in the population.
Mass communication plays a critical role in tobacco control (
Vietnam has a high smoking prevalence among men and a low smoking prevalence among women. In 2002, prevalence was 56.1% among men and 1.8% among women (
Vietnam signed the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on August 8, 2003, and ratified it on November 17, 2004. The FCTC, the first international public health treaty, was developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco use epidemic and is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health. Article 12 of FCTC requires the signing parties to promote and strengthen public awareness of tobacco control issues, using all available and appropriate communication tools and providing broad access to effective and comprehensive educational and public information on the health risks of tobacco use, including the addictive characteristics of tobacco (
In Vietnam, health education and communication are among the important tobacco control strategies (
We analyzed data from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) conducted in Vietnam in 2010 (
The standard GATS questionnaire collects data on adult tobacco use and key measures of tobacco control. The questionnaire was translated and adapted to the Vietnamese context.
Data were collected by 26 teams, each consisting of 1 team leader and 4 interviewers to ensure close supervision and the collection of high-quality data. Data collection was conducted using an iPAQ (Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, California), a portable handheld device, instead of using a traditional paper-based survey. Before conducting the field work, a real-time case file containing addresses and names of the households assigned to the interviewer was preloaded in the iPAQ; the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese. All the responses were entered into the iPAQ. Data were collected from March 22, through May 13, 2010, in all 63 provinces of Vietnam.
The dependent variable was “exposure to antismoking information during the last 30 days prior to the interview” from newspapers and magazines, television, radio, billboards, the Internet, local radio or a loudspeaker, posters, and leaflets or pamphlets. Antismoking information could be any information related to the health effects of tobacco smoking, disease and socioeconomic burden caused by smoking, or smoking cessation methods that were seen or heard from different media. Independent variables were sex, age in years (15-24, 25-44, 45-64, or ≥65), educational level (primary or less, lower secondary, upper secondary, college and/or university degree), occupation (manager or professional, office worker, service or sales, farming, forestry or fishing, construction or mining, production or machine, or other), asset-based wealth quintile (from the poorest to the richest in increments of 20%), residence (urban or rural), smoking status, and knowledge of the health consequences of smoking (don’t know; know the 3 main health consequences [lung cancer, stroke, heart disease] of active smoking or passive smoking; or know the 3 main health consequences of both active and passive smoking).
Both descriptive and analytical statistical analyses were conducted by using Stata 10 (StataCorp, LP, College Station, Texas) software. Percentages and frequencies of exposure to antismoking information and, where appropriate, odds ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated by demographic variable. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to examine the association between exposure to antismoking information and sociodemographic variables (including smoking status). Linear regression was used to examine the association between the number of sources of antismoking information and sociodemographic variables. In the first model of logistic regression and linear regression, education level was included and respondents younger than 25 were excluded because of the assumption that the educational levels of these respondents are not stable. All data were weighted to be representative of households with noninstitutionalized adults aged 15 years or older in Vietnam. A significance level of .05 was used.
The 9,925 completed interviews made up a response rate of 92.7% (93.9% in rural areas and 91.7% in urban sites). The interviews represented an estimated 64.3 million adults aged 15 years or older in Vietnam (
| Characteristics | Sample Size | Weighted % (95% Confidence Interval) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 4,356 | 48.6 (47.3–49.9) |
| Female | 5,569 | 51.4 (50.1–52.7) |
|
| ||
| 15–24 | 1,656 | 25.9 (24.6–27.2) |
| 25–44 | 4,251 | 41.9 (40.6–43.2) |
| 45–64 | 2,886 | 23.4 (22.4–24.5) |
| ≥65 | 1,132 | 8.8 (8.2–9.5) |
|
| ||
| Primary or less | 2,034 | 26.0 (24.2–27.8) |
| Lower secondary | 3,981 | 52.5 (50.8–54.3) |
| Upper secondary | 1,023 | 14.3 (13.1–15.5) |
| College and/or a university degree | 1,227 | 7.2 (6.6–7.9) |
|
| ||
| Manager or professional | 845 | 6.6 (5.9–7.5) |
| Office worker | 220 | 2.0 (1.6–2.3) |
| Service or sales | 1,589 | 19.2 (17.8–20.6) |
| Farming | 3,069 | 49.6 (47.3–51.8) |
| Forestry or fishing | 120 | 1.8 (1.3–2.6) |
| Construction or mining | 317 | 5.2 (4.5–6.0) |
| Production or machine | 834 | 12.9 (11.7–14.3) |
| Other | 248 | 2.7 (2.3–3.3) |
|
| ||
| Urban | 4,958 | 30.7 (30.0–31.4) |
| Rural | 4,967 | 69.3 (68.6–70.0) |
|
| 9,925 | 100 |
Not all values sum to total because not all participants were included in some categories.
The most common channel of antismoking information for Vietnamese adults was television (85.9%); Internet (12.0%) and leaflets or pamphlets (7.7%) were the least common channels. Overall, exposure to antismoking information from at least 1 channel was 91.6% (
Exposure to antismoking information, by exposure channel and smoking status, Vietnam, 2010.
Exposure Channel Current Smoker
Nonsmoker
Overall
% Any channel 91.6 91.6 91.6 Television 86.4 85.8 85.9 Billboards 39.3 43.9 42.8 Local radio/loudspeaker 34.2 39.4 38.2 Newspaper/magazines 29.5 31.2 30.8 Radio 27.7 28.1 28.0 Poster 24.8 28.5 27.6 Internet 8.3 13.1 12.0 Somewhere else 8.3 13.1 12.0 Leaflets/pamphlets 6.4 8.0 7.7
| Variables | Mean No. of Antismoking Information Channels | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||||
| Male | 3.9 | 1 [Reference] | .25 | 1 [Reference] | .66 |
| Female | 3.7 | −0.09 | −0.03 | ||
|
| |||||
| 15–24 | 4.1 | NA | NA | 1 [Reference] | |
| 25–44 | 3.8 | 1 [Reference] | NA | 0.13 | .20 |
| 45–64 | 3.9 | 0.09 | .12 | 0.17 | .12 |
| ≥65 | 3.1 | 0.13 | .27 | 0.05 | .74 |
|
| |||||
| Primary or less | 2.6 | 1 [Reference] | NA | NA | NA |
| Lower secondary | 3.7 | 0.49 | <.001 | ||
| Upper secondary | 4.4 | 0.66 | <.001 | ||
| College and/or a university degree | 5.0 | 0.93 | <.001 | ||
|
| |||||
| Manager/professional | 5.1 | 1 [Reference] | NA | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| Office worker | 5.2 | 0.14 | .53 | 0.05 | .82 |
| Service or sales | 3.9 | −0.42 | .006 | −0.72 | <.001 |
| Farming | 3.2 | −0.42 | .009 | −0.81 | <.001 |
| Forestry or fishing | 3.3 | −0.48 | .06 | −0.94 | <.001 |
| Construction or mining | 3.2 | −0.35 | .08 | −0.88 | <.001 |
| Production or machine | 3.7 | −0.35 | .03 | −0.71 | <.001 |
| Other | 4.3 | −0.06 | .77 | −0.40 | <.001 |
|
| |||||
| Urban | 4.2 | 1 [Reference] | .14 | 1 [Reference] | .02 |
| Rural | 3.5 | −0.10 | −0.17 | ||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 2.2 | 1 [Reference] | .26 | 1 [Reference] | .91 |
| Nonsmoker | 3.8 | 0.09 | −0.01 | ||
|
| |||||
| 1 (poorest) | 2.7 | 1 [Reference] | NA | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| 2 | 3.5 | 0.54 | <.001 | 0.55 | <.001 |
| 3 | 3.7 | 0.55 | <.001 | 0.67 | <.001 |
| 4 | 4.0 | 0.83 | <.001 | 0.98 | <.001 |
| 5 (richest) | 4.7 | 1.22 | <.001 | 1.38 | <.001 |
|
| |||||
| Don’t know | 2.8 | 1 [Reference] | NA | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| Knowledge about 3 main consequences | 3.7 | 0.67 | <.001 | 0.76 | <.001 |
| Knowledge about 3 main consequences | 4.4 | 1.33 | <.001 | 1.41 | <.001 |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.
Model 1 is significant with an intercept of 2.53, and all variables in this model explain 19.6% of the variation in number of antismoking information sources.
Model 2 is significant with an intercept of 3.21, and all variables in this model explain 18.7% of the variation in number of antismoking information sources.
Lung cancer, stroke, or heart disease.
Smokers did not differ from nonsmokers in the exposure to at least 1 antismoking information channel. Compared with current smokers, nonsmokers had slightly higher rates of exposure to information on billboards (43.9% vs 39.3%), the Internet (13.1% vs 8.3%), local radio or a loudspeaker (39.4% vs 34.2%), and posters (28.5% vs 24.8%) (
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 1 [Reference] | |
| Female | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) | 0.9 (0.7–1.3) |
|
| ||
| 15–24 | NA | |
| 25–44 | 1 [Reference] | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) |
| 45–64 | 1.4 (1.1–1.9) | 2.0 (1.3–2.9) |
| ≥65 | 1.5 (0.9–2.5) | 1.5 (0.9–2.7) |
|
| ||
| Primary or less | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| Lower secondary | 2.4 (1.9–3.1) | |
| Upper secondary | 3.9 (2.3–6.7) | |
| College and/or a university degree | 2.5 (1.1–5.5) | |
|
| ||
| Manager or professional | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Office worker | 3.6 (0.6–23.0) | 1.9 (0.5–7.8) |
| Service or sales | 1.0 (0.4–2.6) | 0.8 (0.4–1.5) |
| Farming | 1.1 (0.4–3.1) | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) |
| Forestry or fishing | 1.4 (0.4–5.3) | 0.8 (0.3–2.1) |
| Construction or mining | 1.3 (0.4–4.2) | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) |
| Production or machine | 0.9 (0.3–2.4) | 0.9 (0.4–1.7) |
| Other | 1.0 (0.4–2.8) | 1.3 (0.6–2.8) |
|
| ||
| Urban | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Rural | 1.0 (0.8–1.3) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) |
|
| ||
| Smoker | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Nonsmoker | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) | 0.8 (0.6–1.2) |
|
| ||
| 1 (poorest) | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| 2 | 2.5 (1.8–3.5) | 2.6 (1.9–3.6) |
| 3 | 2.4 (1.5–3.6) | 3.1 (2.0–4.7) |
| 4 | 2.3 (1.6–3.5) | 3.5 (2.4–5.1) |
| 5 (richest) | 2.8 (1.8–4.4) | 4.1 (2.6–6.4) |
|
| ||
| Don’t know | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Knowledge about 3 main consequences | 2.6 (1.9–3.4) | 2.9 (2.2–3.7) |
| Knowledge about 3 main consequences | 5.6 (4.0–7.7) | 4.7 (3.4–6.5) |
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.
Lung cancer, stroke, or heart disease.
Stratified analyses on exposure to antismoking information (data not shown) were conducted by age group, residence, educational attainment, occupation, and level of wealth. Only differences between sexes were found. Men had a significantly higher rate of exposure to the Internet (13.4% vs 10.7%), while women had a significantly higher rate of exposure to local radio or a loudspeaker (42.1% vs 34.1%). According to linear regression and logistic regression analyses, men did not differ from women in the exposure to communication channels nor in number of information channels accessed (
Exposure to antismoking information was significantly higher among respondents from urban areas than those from rural areas from newspapers or magazines (42.2% vs 25.7%), billboards (53.8% vs 37.9%), the Internet (21.8% vs 7.6%), and posters (41.1% vs 21.7%). In contrast, respondents from rural areas had a significantly higher rate of exposure antismoking information from local radio or loudspeakers (40.3% vs 33.4%) and nonlocal radio (29.5% vs 24.7%) than did their urban counterparts. Linear regression and logistic regression models did not find any differences between those from urban and rural areas with regard to number of information sources accessed and exposure to communication channels (
Results of linear regression analysis did not indicate any differences between age groups (
Respondents with higher education levels were more likely than those with less education to be exposed to antismoking information from each of the channels listed in the Figure, except for exposure from local radio or loudspeaker. Linear regression model 1 indicated that higher education was a significant predictor for exposure to more antismoking information channels (
Respondents from the richest group had more exposure than the poorest group to antismoking information in newspapers or magazines, on billboards, on the Internet, and through posters and leaflets or pamphlets, while the poorest group had slightly more exposure than the richest group to local radio or loudspeakers (35.8% vs 32.3%). Linear regression model 1 found that respondents from the wealthiest income groups were exposed to more antismoking information channels than those from the poorest income groups (
Better knowledge about the health consequences of smoking was associated with exposure to more informational channels (
We found that 91.6% of the adult population in Vietnam self-reported that they were exposed to at least 1 antismoking information channel in the previous 30 days. These data suggest that tobacco control efforts have been successful at penetrating the general adult population and that people remember these messages. However, more work is needed to reach subpopulations that were least likely to report having been exposed to antismoking information, specifically those who were younger, had a lower education, or were of lower economic status. This prevalence of exposure is higher than that reported by GATS for the Philippines (80.8%) (
Among all communication channels, most respondents reported being exposed to antismoking information through television (85.9%). Most households in Vietnam now have access to a television (100% among households in urban areas and 85.7% among rural households), and this medium is an important source of information in this country (
In our study, exposure to antismoking information by communication channels differed by sociodemographic groups. We found that respondents who were male, of urban residence, more educated, and of higher socioeconomic status were more likely to be exposed to antismoking messages through the more “modern” communication channels (eg, television) than the more “traditional” channels (eg, loudspeakers, radio). These findings provide good support for selecting communication channels based on sociodemographic characteristics.
We found that having exposure to any media sources did not differ by smoking status, but the mean number of antismoking information channels was higher, though not significant, in nonsmokers than in smokers (3.8 vs 2.2). Nevertheless, this finding is consistent with results from GATS in the Philippines (
Finally, our results indicated a significant association between exposure to antismoking information and knowledge of the health consequences of smoking, although we are not able to assess causation. Each communication channel has its own strengths and weaknesses, but conveying messages through several channels would make it easier for recipients to be reached and would make the messages more convincing and easier to remember. Thus, those who have exposure to more information sources are more likely to have better knowledge about smoking, and this knowledge would likely result in behaviors such as not to start smoking or to quit smoking.
The high level of exposure to antismoking information channels does not ensure that current communication programs in tobacco control are effective. Effectiveness of a communication program depends on several factors, including communication contents, methods, frequencies, capacity of information sources, and characteristics of the audience. One limitation to our study was that we could not determine the contents of antismoking information, which may have affected recipients’ knowledge and smoking behaviors differently because the information may have varied within and between information sources. However, evidence from our study can be used to plan communication programs aiming to reach different groups in the society.
We found that the prevalence of being exposed to at least 1 source of antismoking information was high among adults in Vietnam. However, exposure differed across sociodemographic groups. Respondents of higher social class often had more exposure to different sources of antismoking information and via more modern media sources, while respondents of lower social class were exposed to more traditional sources such as radio or loudspeakers. Use of multiple communication channels is recommended to reinforce antismoking messages and to reach different groups in the population. To maintain the achievements of the communication campaign in Vietnam and to improve the effectiveness of tobacco control activities, strong and continuous antismoking communication programs are necessary.
This study was funded by the Bloomberg Philanthropies. We appreciate the contributions to the success of the survey made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the CDC Foundation, the World Health Organization, the General Statistics Office of Vietnam, and Hanoi Medical University.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.