The retention rate from Waves 1 to 2 was 78% in Thailand, but only 50% in Bangkok. The retention rate was 44% in Malaysia, where the recontact fieldwork proved to be much more difficult, due mainly to inaccessibility or selleck screening library other failure to recontact rather than refusal. Retention rates for Waves 2�C3 were 83% and 59% for Thailand and Malaysia, respectively. In order to minimize the effect of attrition, those lost to follow-up were replenished using the same sampling procedure as used at baseline. Figure 1. Timeline of data collection in Thailand (TH) and Malaysia (MY) for each wave and key events related to health warning policy changes and passive smoking media campaign in Thailand. Survey Interviewing The survey fieldwork was conducted by trained interviewers in each of the two countries.

In Thailand, the survey interviewing was conducted in Thai by staff of the Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University. In Malaysia, the survey interviewing was conducted in Malay (or in English if preferred) by staff of Universiti Sains Malaysia with assistance from the Malaysian Statistics Department and Ministry of Health. The length of the survey interview was approximately 50�C60min in both countries. All aspects of the training and survey interviewing protocol were standardized across both countries to the extent possible. Measures Demographic Measures In addition to measures of gender and age, ethnicity was measured in accordance with the census categories in each country and was used as a binary variable in these analyses (majority group vs. minority group).

Education was measured using standard categories in each country, and combined for analysis into a dichotomized variable: those without secondary education and those with at least secondary education. Smoking-Relevant Variables These consisted of cigarettes smoked per day, smoking frequency (daily vs. nondaily), and whether the smoker smoked exclusively FM cigarettes, smoked exclusively RYO cigarettes, or smoked a mix of RYO and FM cigarettes. Antismoking Information or Advertising Respondents were asked whether, in the last 6 months, they noticed (Yes/No) any antismoking information or advertising from TV, radio, billboard, newspaper, and so forth and Yes responses were summed to form a composite measure of awareness of antismoking information other than from warning labels.

Warning-Label Effectiveness Measures Warning label salience (noticing and reading the labels closely) was assessed using two questions: ��In the last month, how often, if at all, have you noticed the health warnings on cigarette packages?�� Entinostat and ��In the last month, how often, if at all, have you read or looked closely at the health warnings on cigarette packages?�� The response options for both were ��Never,�� ��Once in a while,�� ��Often,�� and ��Very often.