Cigarette health warning label compliance in Nigeria: A multi-city observational study

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco remains the world’s leading preventable cause of death, with the majority of tobacco-caused deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries. The first global health treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), outlines a set of policy initiatives that have been demonstrated as effective in reducing tobacco use. Article 11 of the FCTC focuses on using the tobacco package to communicate tobacco-caused harms; it also seeks to restrict the delivery of misleading information on the pack about the product. The objective of his study is to establish a surveillance system for tobacco packs in Nigeria to assess pack compliance with in-country health warning label requirements. The Tobacco Pack Surveillance System (TPackSS) monitors whether required health warnings on tobacco packages are being implemented as intended and identifies pack designs that might violate the communication of harm-related information and undermine the impact of the country’s tobacco packaging laws. METHODS: Tobacco cigarette packs were collected in three cities in 2019–2020. The intention was, to the extent possible, to construct a census of ‘unique’ pack presentations available for purchase in Nigeria. We implemented the TPackSS standardized Protocol for acquiring packs from 36 diverse neighborhoods across three cities. At the time of purchase, data on the price and place of acquisition of each pack were recorded. We photographed packs, coded, and archived them. Each pack was coded for compliance according to the current health warning label laws. Each pack was coded by two independent coders consistently. We routinely measured intercoder reliability and only retained variables for which a good level of reliability was achieved. RESULTS: Across the three cities in Nigeria, the team collected 90 tobacco packs. Overall, 77% of packs evaluated for HWL compliance complied with all the relevant common indicators of HWL compliance. There was a 92% compliance with the location of the HWL (e.g. top or bottom of pack, front or back panel) with in-country requirements. Of the four compliance indicators, the size of the HWL (the minimum required coverage) showed the lowest compliance (31%) (i.e. the HWL was too small on most of the packs). Label elements (such as color contrast or content of warnings) showed 85% compliance overall. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the packs showed various levels of compliance with Health Warning Label provisions for Nigeria. Periodic evaluations are required to ensure that minimum requirements are met.