Slim cigarette smoking prevalence among Canadian youth smokers: Implications for federal standardized packaging legislation.

Minaker, Leia M. ; Tait, Hannah ; Ong, Maple 等

Tobacco use poses major health risks (1) and continues to be the leading cause of preventable death globally. (2, 3) In Canada, almost 17% of all deaths are attributable to smoking, and over 85% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking. (4) Despite dramatic declines in smoking among Canadian youth, 11% of those aged 15-19 in Canada are current smokers. (5) Adolescence is a critical time for smoking initiation, and therefore policy interventions targeting and protecting youth are a crucial element of tobacco control efforts.

In Canada, tobacco industry marketing has been curtailed through tobacco control policies such as those that disallow print, radio, and television advertising, (6) restrictions on in-store displays (known as point-of-sale displays), (6) banning of the terms "light" and "mild" from being associated with cigarette brands, and mandatory warning labels on cigarette packages, which currently take up 75% of the front and back of packages. (7) One of the last frontiers in traditional tobacco industry marketing in Canada is the cigarette packaging and product itself, which is central to the tobacco industry's efforts to promote tobacco use. (8)

Packaging plays an important role in creating and reinforcing brand imagery. (9, 10) Consumer research by tobacco companies has demonstrated that alternative cigarette packaging and design can reduce risk perceptions and positively affect purchase interest. (11) Deviations from standard cigarette packaging and product design have been associated with positive imaging, consumer perceptions of quality, and false health beliefs. (11, 12) Slim and superslim cigarettes are one such innovation that is used to entice women, reduce perceptions of harm, and attract new smokers. (13) Furthermore, youth are attracted to novelty and branded cigarette packs. (10, 14)

Although slim cigarettes have been available in Canada for some time, superslim cigarettes were introduced to the Canadian market as recently as 2007. (15) The introduction of slim/superslim cigarettes (hereafter, we refer to slim/superslim cigarettes simply as slim cigarettes) is of concern because they have a smaller diameter than traditional cigarettes and can reduce harm perceptions. (16) Borland and Savvas (17) found that cigarette rod design features have measurable effects on participant perceptions of product attractiveness, quality, and taste. Slim cigarettes are perceived to be less harmful than regular cigarettes by youth and women, (18) and are more likely to be described by consumers as mild or low-tar relative to regular cigarettes. (11) Further, slim cigarettes are perceived as more pleasant for beginner smokers. (16) In a national sample of US 18-19-year-old women, slim cigarette packages were more likely to be rated as less harmful than regular packages, even when the colour and brand were removed. (19) Young women tend to find slim cigarettes attractive and prefer them to standard "fat" cigarettes. (11, 16, 17, 20) Appealing qualities include sizes appropriate for fitting easily into hands or purses. (11)

Tobacco surveillance conducted among adults in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia revealed that slim cigarette smokers are more likely to believe their own brand to be less harmful than regular cigarettes. (18) These misconceptions are worrying, given that slim cigarettes are at least as harmful as regular cigarettes. (15, 21) Slim cigarettes are specifically promoted to females and youth (18, 22) using themes and imagery from historic advertisements, (18, 23) which associate slim cigarette smoking with body weight maintenance. (20, 12) Evidence from tobacco industry documents suggests that pack structure is used to attract young consumers. (11) One experimental study found that the most important feature in determining young women's intention to try cigarettes was pack structure, (24) which can be addressed through legislation on plain packaging, as discussed below.

Currently, 4 countries have finalized requirements for plain packaging, and another 14 are formally considering or are in the process of developing plain packaging legislation. (25) Legislation in Australia, which was the first country to implement plain packaging legislation in 2012, regulates tobacco packaging but not cigarette size or shape. Other countries, including Canada, are considering plain and standardized packaging, which would regulate both the package and the cigarettes themselves. (25)

In May 2016, the Canadian federal government released a report for consultation on "Plain and Standardized Packaging" for tobacco products. (26) The government sought feedback on the proposal, which included requiring a common appearance for cigarettes, in part based on scientific evidence that slim cigarettes convey weaker or milder taste and false beliefs that they are less harmful. (26)

There is ample evidence from surveillance data, experimental data, and the tobacco industry itself that slim cigarettes are successfully marketed to women, girls, and youth. Despite this, the prevalence of slim cigarette smoking among Canadian youth is unknown. The current study combines three waves of youth tobacco use surveillance data and data from a 2015 multi-province, school-based survey to describe the prevalence and perceptions of slim cigarette smoking among Canadian grades 9-12 students. This study therefore fills a gap in knowledge about the prevalence of slim cigarette smoking in Canada and provides timely and relevant evidence given recent federal announcements to move ahead on plain packaging in Canada.

METHODS

Data from three waves of the Youth Smoking Survey (YSS; now the Canadian Student Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs Survey, CSTADS) (2008/2009, 2010/2011, and 2012/2013) were used in the current study, as were data from the 2015 Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (CRAYS). Briefly, the YSS is a biennial, national, and provincially generalizable, school-based, paper-and-pencil survey that measures knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to tobacco use among Canadian students (also see www.cstads.ca). CRAYS is a provincially generalizable, paper-and-pencil, school-based survey implemented in seven provinces from January to December 2015 and measures tobacco use and perceptions, and other cancer risk behaviours (see https://uwaterloo.ca/crays/). Table 1 describes the data sources used in the current study, including the survey design, target population, participation rates, and number of participating schools and students.

All four waves of data collection were administered during class time in the various school years, and student participants were not remunerated. Given the low prevalence of tobacco use among grades 6-8 students and to maintain consistent age ranges for the data collected in this study, data from grades 9-12 students were used in the following analyses. Analyses were conducted in 2016. YSS and CRAYS were approved by the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo and school board ethics review committees, as required. YSS was also approved by the Health Canada Research Ethics Board.

MEASURES

The current study presents data from all questions in these four surveys related to slim and superslim cigarette use and attitudes. Questions on attitudes toward and use of slim and superslim cigarettes represent dependent variables in the current study and are described below.

Dependent variables

2008/2009 YSS

Participants were asked what brand of cigarettes they usually smoked and then asked "For the cigarette brand that you indicated, what size cigarette do you usually smoke? (Check only one)". Response options included: I do not smoke; I do not have a regular size; King Size; Regular Size; Superslim; 100s; Other. Students were coded as slim cigarette smokers if they marked "Superslim" or "100s", since in Canada, 100s (cigarettes that are 100 mm in length) are almost exclusively slim or superslim varieties.

2010/2011 YSS

Participants were asked what brand of cigarettes they usually smoked and then asked, "For the cigarette brand that you indicated, what size cigarette do you usually smoke? (Mark all that apply)." Response options included: I do not smoke; I do not have a regular size; King Size; Regular Size; Superslim; 100s; Other. Students were coded as slim cigarette smokers if they marked "Superslim" and/or "100s".

2012/2013 YSS

Participants were asked, "Why do you smoke the brand of cigarettes that you do? (Mark all that apply)." Response options included: I do not smoke; I do not have a usual brand; My friends smoke the same brand; My parents smoke the same brand; I like the packaging; The brand costs less than other brands; I like the image of the brand; I like the taste; They are the only ones that I can get; For the nicotine buzz; I like the slim (or super-slim) size; I like the menthol flavour; Other. Students were coded as slim cigarette smokers if they responded "I like the slim (or superslim) size".

2015 CRAYS

To assess students' harm perceptions, the following question was asked, "Compared to regular cigarettes, slim cigarettes are ... ", with response options: a lot less harmful; a little less harmful; as harmful; a little more harmful; a lot more harmful, and; I don't know. Responses were collapsed to provide the following variables: Less harmful; As harmful; More harmful; I don't know.

One additional question assessed students' usual brand of cigarettes through the question, "Do you have a usual brand of cigarettes? If yes, please describe your usual brand". Response options included: I do not smoke; I do not have a usual brand; Yes, I have a usual brand. For students who reported having a usual brand, they were asked, using an open-ended format question, to identify the brand, identify the type (e.g., slim), and identify the size (e.g., king or regular). All open-ended survey responses were compiled verbatim in an Excel spreadsheet and were coded to reflect whether any information contained in the brand (e.g., brand names of slim cigarettes), type (e.g., "slim", or brand colours of slim cigarettes), and/or size fields (e.g., 100s) indicated slim or superslim cigarettes.

Covariates

Covariates of interest included the respondent's sex (male, female), grade (9-12), and number of cigarettes usually smoked each day in the previous 30 days, which were derived from the question, "Thinking back over the last 30 days, on the days that you smoked, how many cigarettes did you usually smoke each day?" Response options included: None; A few puffs to one whole cigarette; 2-3 cigarettes; 4-5 cigarettes; 6-10 cigarettes; 11-20 cigarettes; 21-29 cigarettes; 30 or more cigarettes. Responses were collapsed to the following categories: None; 1-10 cigarettes; more than 10 cigarettes.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Survey weights were used to adjust for sample selection (school and class levels), as well as non-response (at the school, class, and student levels), and post-stratification of the sample population relative to grade and sex distribution in the total population. Bootstrap weights were applied for all analyses in YSS data. Strata and cluster information were applied for all analyses in CRAYS data.

Descriptive statistics were used to show the prevalence of grades 9-12 student smokers who reported smoking slim or superslim cigarettes in the different survey years by sex and grade. Rao Scott chi-square statistics were applied to calculate p values for associations.

RESULTS

Table 2 shows the weighted prevalence of slim cigarette smoking among current smokers (defined as those who reported smoking at least one cigarette in the previous 30 days) by sex and by grade. In 2008/2009, 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6-2.1) of current smokers reported usually smoking slim cigarettes. The prevalence was 2.6% (95% CI: 0.8-4.4) in 2010/2011 and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.7-7.5) in 2012/2013. The difference between females and males in all datasets was not statistically significant. On the other hand, the higher prevalence of slim cigarette use among grades 9-10 students relative to grades 11-12 students was statistically significant in the 2012/2013 YSS (p = 0.0022).

Table 3 describes the results from the 2015 CRAYS data. Specifically, 2.9% (95% CI: 1.8-4.0) of students who reported a usual brand of cigarettes reported usually smoking slim cigarettes. While there was no significant difference in prevalence of slim cigarette use by sex, grades 9-10 students had a significantly higher prevalence of use compared with grades 11-12 students (p = 0.0191). The vast majority of students (59.8% of females and 53.3% of males) responded, "I don't know" to the survey item seeking to determine perceptions around how harmful slim cigarettes are compared with regular cigarettes.

DISCUSSION

A small but growing proportion of Canadian youth smokers report usually smoking slim or superslim cigarettes. There were no significant sex differences in slim cigarette use, but in the two most recent surveys, younger students (grades 9 and 10) had a significantly higher prevalence of slim cigarette use relative to older students (grades 11 and 12). Finally, the majority of students were unsure whether slim cigarettes were more or less harmful than regular cigarettes. Each of these findings is discussed in more detail below.

Few studies to date have assessed the prevalence of slim cigarette use at apopulation level, and none has done so among Canadian youth. Data from the 2006 International Tobacco Control study found that among adult smokers, 1.2% of Canadians, 5.4% of Americans, 0% of British respondents, and 1.3% of Australians reported a slim usual brand. (18) In the US, over one-third of adult current smokers reported smoking long/ultra-long cigarettes in 2011/2012 (virtually all of which are also slim cigarettes), despite an overall decline in long/ultra-long cigarette smoking from 1999 to 2012. (27) This is the first study to our knowledge to report the prevalence estimates of slim cigarette use among youth smokers in a nationally generalizable population.

The lack of significant difference in prevalence of slim cigarette use by sex was surprising, given the evidence that slim cigarettes predominantly target women and girls, (28) and that women and girls report slim cigarette packs more attractive than "plain" packs. (19) One explanation for this discrepant finding is that gendered tobacco use may become more apparent over time, and our study examined youth rather than adults. Regardless of this, gendered tobacco industry marketing strategies raise issues of gender equity in tobacco control research, practice, and policy. (29) Cigarettes are marketed to women as a symbol of emancipation, (30-32) beauty, independence, and sexual desirability. (13, 23) In part, this explains why the gap between men's and women's smoking is narrow in high-income countries and particularly in countries with high levels of women's empowerment, (33) including Canada. (34) Marketing that targets women's and girls' weight concerns undermines women's emancipation and, by drawing women into the tobacco epidemic, may increase gendered health inequity. The fact that these types of marketing strategies are often countered by government-led, gendered social marketing campaigns like, "If you smoke, your future's not pretty" (35) can further play into gendered social structures and systems. (36) Legislation to create plain and standardized packaging, which is currently under consideration in Canada, is an example of positive action towards a framework that improves gender equity. Such legislation would reduce the industry's ability to profit from the pressure women face to be slender/desirable. (37) Gender-responsive health promotion efforts should be used to adjust for the aggressive targeting of young women by tobacco companies while working to undermine persistent, shaming, and stereotyped ideas about womanhood and the values women hold. (29, 36)

Second, in terms of age, in the most recent surveys we examined (2011/2012 YSS and 2015 CRAYS), a larger proportion of grades 9-10 students reported slim cigarettes use compared with grades 11-12. This is a novel finding to our knowledge, although unsurprising, given that youth are receptive to novelty packs (11, 38) and that slim cigarettes are perceived as more pleasant and palatable for new smokers. (16) Moreover, youth perceive slim cigarettes to be weaker, less harmful, lighter, and cleaner than regular cigarettes, and as mild or low-tar, (11, 16) which is related to our next major finding regarding perceptions of harm.

Third, the majority of youth smokers (56.2%) reported not knowing whether slim cigarettes were more or less harmful than regular cigarettes. Recent evidence suggests that slim cigarettes are not actually less harmful than regular cigarettes. (15) Despite this, industry documents reveal that tobacco companies are aware of and exploit the effects of slim cigarette packaging on consumer perception of harm (28) and, as noted, slim cigarettes are often perceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes among adults (18, 19) and youth. (11, 16, 39) The findings here, along with existing evidence, indicate that tobacco control campaigns should continue to educate youth and adults on the harms associated with all types of combustible tobacco.

This study has several limitations. First and foremost, survey items assessing slim cigarette use in the YSS were not consistently worded over time. In 2008/2009 YSS, students were instructed to "check only one" option in response to the question, "For the cigarette brand that you indicated, what size cigarette do you usually smoke?" In 2010/2011 YSS, students were instructed to "mark all that apply" to the same question. The change in survey items may have increased the number of students reporting that they usually smoke slim cigarettes. In 2012/2013 YSS, students who responded "I like the slim (or super-slim) size" in response to a question about why they smoke their particular brand of cigarettes was used to assess slim cigarette use. Had the questions been consistent, we could have accurately compared changes over time. Another limitation is that questions assessed the size of the cigarettes that participants "usually" smoked. Therefore, students who smoke slims in addition to other sizes of cigarettes may not have been captured, and the results may therefore underestimate the overall prevalence of slim cigarette use among Canadian youth. CRAYS data, on the other hand, had different sampling methods and target population, and only students who reported smoking a "usual brand" and who reported slim cigarettes in an open-ended question format were included as slim cigarette smokers.

Despite the limitations, this nationally and provincially generalizable study provides the first evidence on students' slim cigarette use in Canada. It has reinforced trends found in the literature and supports the need for further surveillance efforts to determine whether use of novel or non-traditional tobacco product among youth is growing or declining. (40) Eliminating slim cigarettes from the Canadian market may serve to reduce youth uptake of smoking, which would reduce future cancer incidence. These findings therefore support federal action on plain and standardized packaging such as that currently being considered by the federal government in Canada. (41)

doi: 10.17269/CJPH.108.6197

Acknowledgements: This manuscript was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society grant #2011-701019, through the Propel Centre. The data used for this research were taken from Health Canada's Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CSTADS; formerly Youth Smoking Survey) and the Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (CRAYS), which was conducted by the Propel Centre at the University of Waterloo. Health Canada has not reviewed, approved, or endorsed this research. Any views expressed or conclusions drawn herein do not necessarily represent those of Health Canada. LMM gratefully acknowledges funding from the Canadian Cancer Society through a Career Development Award in Cancer Prevention (#704744).

REFERENCES

(1.) Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013; 380(9859):2224-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8.

(2.) van Meijgaard J, Fielding JE. Estimating benefits of past, current, and future reductions in smoking rates using a comprehensive model with competing causes of death. Prev Chronic Dis 2012; 9:110295. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.110295.

(3.) Pipe AL, Eisenberg MJ, Gupta A, Reid RD, Suskin NG, Stone JA. Smoking cessation and the cardiovascular specialist: Canadian Cardiovascular Society position paper. Can J Cardiol 2011; 27(2):132-37. PMID: 21459259. doi: 10.1016/ j.cjca.2010.12.060.

(4.) Canadian Cancer Society. Smoking and Tobacco. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society, 2014. Available at: http://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention- andscreening/live-well/smoking-and-tobacco/?region=on (Accessed September 21, 2016).

(5.) Minaker L, Manske S, Reid JL, Hammond D, Rynard VL. Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends. Waterloo, ON: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, 2014.

(6.) Government of Canada [Health Canada Website]. Health Concerns: An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2009. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac- tabac/legislation/federal/2009_factrenseignements-eng.php (Accessed September 28, 2016).

(7.) Government of Canada [Justice Laws Website]. Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations (Cigarettes and Little Cigars) SOR/2011-177. Ottawa, ON: The Minister of Justice, 2016. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ regulations/SOR-2011-177/index.html (Accessed September 28, 2016).

(8.) DiFranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: Opportunities for disease prevention. Tob Induc Dis 2003; 1(2):97-109. PMID: 19570250. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-1-2-97.

(9.) Wakefield M. Welcome to cardboard country: How plain packaging could change the subjective experience of smoking. Tob Control 2011; 20(5):321-22. PMID: 21846931. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.044446.

(10.) Hammond D, Daniel S, White CM. The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. J Adolesc Health 2013; 52(2):151-57. PMID: 23332478. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.003.

(11.) Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: Evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction 2013; 108(9):1658-68. PMID: 23600674. doi: 10.1111/add.12183.

(12.) Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: The impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control 2011; 20(5):353-60. PMID: 21478476. doi: 10.1136/ tc.2010.038315.

(13.) Boyd TC, Boyd CJ, Greenlee TB. A means to an end: Slim hopes and cigarette advertising. Health Promot Prac 2003; 4(3):266-77. PMID: 14610997. doi: 10.1177/ 1524839903004003011.

(14.) Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. How adolescents perceive cigarette packaging and possible benefits of plain packaging. Educ Health 2013; 31(2):83-88.

(15.) Siu M, Mladjenovic N, Soo E. The analysis of mainstream smoke emissions of Canadian 'super slim' cigarettes. Tob Control 2013; 22(6):e10. PMID: 228 21751. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050450.

(16.) Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance. Eur J Public Health 2014; 24(3):464-68. PMID: 24158317. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt161.

(17.) Borland R, Savvas S. Effects of stick design features on perceptions of characteristics of cigarettes. Tob Control 2013; 22(5):331-37. PMID: 22396209. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050199.

(18.) Mutti S, Hammond D, Borland R, Cummings MK, O'Connor RJ, Fong GT. Beyond light and mild: Cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2011; 106(6):1166-75. PMID: 21481054. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03402.x.

(19.) Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 2011; 13(7):579-88. PMID: 21486994. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr045.

(20.) Lee K, Carpenter C, Challa C, Lee S, Connolly GN, Koh HK. The strategic targeting of females by transnational tobacco companies in South Korea following trade liberalisation. Global Health 2009; 5(1):2. PMID: 19183443. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-5-2.

(21.) Matsunaga Y, Agaku IT, Vardavas CI. The association between cigarette rod length, slim design, and blood cadmium levels among U.S. smokers: NHANES 1999-2010. PrevMed2014; 65:87-91. PMID: 24794088. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed. 2014.04.021.

(22.) World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. Empower Women Combating Tobacco Industry Marketing in the WHO European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO, 2010. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/ pdf_file/0014/128120/e93852.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2016).

(23.) Tinkler P. 'Red tips for hot lips': Advertising cigarettes for young women in Britain, 1920-70. Women's Hist Rev 2001; 10(2):249-72. doi: 10.1080/ 09612020100200289.

(24.) Kotnowski K, Fong GT, Gallopel-Morvan K, Islam T, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette packaging design among young females in Canada: Findings from a discrete choice experiment. Nicotine Tob Res 2016; 18(5):1348-56. PMID: 26014454. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv114.

(25.) Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report, fifth ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society, 2016. Available at: http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ Cigarette-Package-Health-Warnings-International-Status-Report-English-CCSOct- 2016.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2016).

(26.) Government of Canada. Consultation on "Plain and Standardized Packaging" for Tobacco Products. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2016. Available at: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/ tobacco-packages-emballages-produits-tabac/document-eng.php (Accessed November 12, 2016).

(27.) Agaku IT, Vardavas CI, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Alpert HR, Connolly GN. Gender and racial differences in smoking of long/ultra-long and king size cigarettes among U.S. adult smokers, NHANES 1999-2012. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014; 136:28-35. PMID: 24417962. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.004.

(28.) Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN. Designing cigarettes for women: New findings from the tobacco industry documents. Addiction 2005; 100(6):837-51. PMID: 15918814. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01072.x.

(29.) Amos A, Greaves L, Nichter M, Bloch M. Women and tobacco: A call for including gender in tobacco control research, policy and practice. Tob Control 2012; 21(2):236-43. PMID: 22166266. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011050280.

(30.) Amos A, Haglund M. From social taboo to "torch of freedom": The marketing of cigarettes to women. Tob Control 2000; 9(1):3-8. PMID: 10691743. doi: 10.1136/ tc.9.1.3.

(31.) O'Keefe AM, Pollay RW. Deadly targeting of women in promoting cigarettes. J Am Med Women Assoc 1996; 51(1-2):67-69. PMID: 8868553.

(32.) Nerin I. Women and smoking: Fatal attraction. Arch Bronconeumol (English Edition) 2005; 41(7):360-62. doi: 10.1016/S1579-2129(06)60241-3.

(33.) Hitchman SC, Fong GT. Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios. Bull World Health Organ 2011; 89(3):195-202. PMID: 21379415. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.079905.

(34.) World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/ mpower/mpower_report_full_2008.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2016).

(35.) Queensland Government. Your future isn't pretty if you smoke. Brisbane, Australia: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2014. Available at: http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/5/29/your-future-isnt-pretty-ifyou- smoke (Accessed November 26, 2017).

(36.) Pederson A, Greaves L, Poole N. Gender-transformative health promotion for women: A framework for action. Health Promot Int 2015; 30(1):140-50. PMID: 25231058. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau083.

(37.) Anderson SJ, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Emotions for sale: Cigarette advertising and women's psychosocial needs. Tob Control 2005; 14(2):127-35. PMID: 15791023. doi: 10.1136/tc.2004.009076.

(38.) Ford A, MacKintosh AM, Moodie C, Richardson S, Hastings G. Cigarette pack design and adolescent smoking susceptibility: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2013; 3(9):e003282. PMID: 24056481. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013003282.

(39.) Kaleta D, Polanska K, Bak-Romaniszyn L, Wojtysiak P. Perceived relative harm of selected cigarettes and non-cigarette tobacco products--a study of young people from a socio-economically disadvantaged rural area in Poland. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13(9):885. PMID: 27608034. doi: 10.3390/ ijerph13090885.

(40.) Minaker LM, Shuh A, Burkhalter RJ, Manske SR. Hookah use prevalence, predictors, and perceptions among Canadian youth: Findings from the 2012/2013 youth smoking survey. Cancer Causes Control 2015; 26(6):831-38. PMID: 25783457. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0556-x.

(41.) Public Works and Government Services Canada. BILL S-5: An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts. 1st Reading, November 22, 2016, 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, 2015-2016. Ottawa, ON: The Parliament of Canada. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx? Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8616193 (Accessed November 29, 2016).

Received: April 3, 2017

Accepted: September 10, 2017

Leia M. Minaker, PhD, [1, 2] Hannah Tait, MPH, [2] Maple Ong, [3] Nghia Nguyen, PhD [2]

Author Affiliations

[1.] School of Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

[2.] Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

[3.] School of Public Health and Health Systems, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

Correspondence: Leia M. Minaker, Assistant Professor, School of Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo and Affiliated Scientist, Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, EV3 3239, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Tel: 519-888-4567, ext. 35615, E-mail: lminaker@ uwaterloo.ca

Conflict of Interest: None to declare. Table 1. Data sources used in the current study: Youth Smoking Survey (YSS) waves 2008/2009, 2010/2011, 2012/2013, and Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (CRAYS) 2015 Target population 2008/2009 YSS 2010/2011 YSS Grades 6-12 Grades 6-12 Number of 10 9 (New Brunswick participating excluded) provinces Sampling strategy Stratified random Stratified random sample. sample. Stratified by Stratified by province; province; regional smoking regional smoking rate; school type rate; school type (elementary vs. (elementary vs. secondary secondary school); urban school); urban vs. rural (for vs. rural (for Ontario, Quebec, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta). Alberta). School 59% 56% participation rate * Number of 329 426 participating schools Student 73% 73% participation rate ([dagger]) Number of 29 296 31 396 participating students Target population 2012/2013 YSS 2015 CRAYS Grades 6-12 Grades 9-12 Number of 9 (Manitoba 7 (Manitoba, New participating excluded) Brunswick, Prince provinces Edward Island excluded) Sampling strategy Stratified random Stratified random sample. sample. Stratified by Stratified by province; province. regional smoking rate; school type (elementary vs. secondary school); urban vs. rural (for Ontario, Quebec, Alberta). School 64% 30% participation rate * Number of 450 74 participating schools Student 72% 41% participation rate ([dagger]) Number of 27 404 12 110 participating students * School participation rate: percentage of schools that participated out of those approached to participate. ([dagger]) Student participation rate: percentage of eligible students within participating schools who participated. Table 2. Weighted prevalence of slim cigarette smokers among grades 9/12 current smokers (at least one cigarette in the last 30 days), 2008/2009 YSS, 2010/2011 YSS, and 2012/2013 YSS 2008/2009 YSS N weighted = 308 400 Characteristics of % (N) * 95% CI p value survey population Canada 1.3 (4124) 0.6-2.1 Sex Female 1.4 (1879) 0.6-2.1 0.8612 Male 1.3 (2245) 0.4-2.2 Grade 9-10 1.8 (2376) 0.7-2.9 0.1822 11-12 1.0 (1748) 0.2-1.8 2010/2011 YSS N weighted = 237 104 Characteristics of % (N) 95% CI p value survey population ([dagger]) Canada 2.6 (6171) 0.8-4.4 Sex Female 3.3 (3402) 0.1-6.6 0.2025 Male 2.1 (2769) 1.1-3.0 Grade 9-10 3.1 (2863) 1.6-4.6 0.4263 11-12 2.3 (3309) 0.0-4.5 2012/2013 YSS N weighted = 174485 Characteristics of % (N) 95% CI p value survey population ([double dagger]) Canada 5.1 (8902) 2.7-7.5 Sex Female 6.5 (4893) 1.9-11.1 0.2189 Male 4.0 (4009) 2.3-5.8 Grade 9-10 8.5 (5622) 2.9-14.2 0.0022 11-12 3.0 (3280) 2.0-4.1 Note: CI = confidence interval. * 2008/2009 Youth Smoking Survey (YSS): Weighted prevalence of students reporting usually smoking super slim cigarettes or 100s in response to the question, "For the cigarette brand that you indicated, what size cigarette do you usually smoke? (Check only one)". ([dagger]) 2010/2011 YSS: Weighted prevalence of students reporting usually smoking super slim cigarettes and/or 100s in response to the question, "For the cigarette brand that you indicated, what size cigarette do you usually smoke? (Mark all that apply)". ([double dagger]) 2012/2013 YSS: Weighted prevalence of students who reported, "I like the slim (or super-slim) size" in response to the question, "Why do you smoke the brand of cigarettes that you do? (Mark all that apply)". Table 3. Weighted prevalence of slim cigarette smokers among grades 9-12 current smokers (at least one cigarette in the last 30 days) and perceptions of harm (full sample), 2015 Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (CRAYS) Characteristics of 2015 CRAYS N weighted = 86444 survey population Prevalence of slim cigarette use % (N) * 95% CI p value Canada 2.9 (2534) 1.8-4.0 Sex Female 3.0 (1152) 1.0-4.9 0.9052 Male 2.9 (1 382) 1.2-4.5 Grade 9-10 5.1 (1352) 2.4-7.9 0.0191 11-12 2.0 (1182) 0.8-3.1 Characteristics of 2015 CRAYS N weighted = 86444 survey population Less harmful ([dagger]) % (N) 95% CI Canada 13.0 (10 994) 10.1-15.9 Sex Female 12.3 (4671) 8.4-16.2 Male 13.6 (6323) 10.0-17.2 Grade 9-10 11.7 (3027) 7.5-15.9 11-12 13.6 (7967) 9.1-18.1 Characteristics of 2015 CRAYS N weighted = 86444 survey population As harmful % (N) 95% CI Canada 28.5 (24 033) 22.6-34.3 Sex Female 26.3 (9973) 16.4-36.3 Male 30.2 (14 060) 24.1-36.4 Grade 9-10 27.4 (7102) 16.4-38.5 11-12 29.0 (16 931) 22.6-35.2 Characteristics of 2015 CRAYS N weighted = 86444 survey population More harmful ([double dagger]) % (N) 95% CI Canada 2.3 (1954) 1.2-3.4 Sex Female 1.6 (594) 0.0-3.1 Male 2.9 (1 360) 1.3-4.5 Grade 9-10 4.6 (1177) 1.6-7.5 11-12 1.3 (777) 0.4-2.3 Characteristics of 2015 CRAYS N weighted = 86444 survey population I don't know % (N) 95% CI p value Canada 56.2 (47 407) 50.3-62.1 Sex Female 59.8 (22 642) 48.6-70.9 0.5471 Male 53.3 (24 765) 46.4-60.1 Grade 9-10 56.3 (14568) 44.5-68.1 0.2846 11-12 56.1 (38 239) 49.1-63.1 * 2015 CRAYS: Weighted prevalence of students who indicated smoking slim, super-slim, or 100s cigarettes within the open-ended brand, size and type question. ([dagger]) Weighted prevalence of students who responded "A lot less harmful" or "A little less harmful" to the statement, "Compared to regular cigarettes, slim cigarettes are ... ". ([double dagger]) Weighted prevalence of students who responded "A little more harmful" or "A lot more harmful" to the statement "Compared to regular cigarettes, slim cigarettes are ... "