J F Thrasher1, J Niederdeppe, M C Farrelly, K C Davis, K M Ribisl, M L Haviland. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, 311 Rosenau Hall, CB#7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440, USA. thrasher@email.unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions may not respond favourably to anti-industry ads. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether state level involvement in tobacco production appears to limit the effectiveness of anti-industry ads to prevent tobacco use among adolescents in the USA. DESIGN: Time trend analyses were done using repeated cross sectional data from six waves of the Legacy Media Tracking Survey, which were collected between 1999 and 2003. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 28,307 adolescents, ages 12-17 years, were classified as living in: tobacco producing states (TPS) (n = 1929); non-tobacco producing states (non-TPS) with low tobacco control funding comparable to TPS (n = 5323); non-TPS with relatively high funding (n = 15,076); and non-TPS with established anti-industry ad campaigns (n = 5979). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reactions to anti-industry ads; strength of anti-industry attitudes/beliefs; changes in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs over time. RESULTS: Ad reactions did not differ by state type. Multivariate adjusted time trend analyses indicated significant, comparable increases in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs since the onset of the truth campaign, in both TPS and non-TPS. Mediation analyses indicated that these increases were due, in part, to campaign exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions appear to be as responsive to anti-industry ads as their counterparts in non-tobacco producing regions. This study provides further evidence for the effectiveness of such ads.
BACKGROUND: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions may not respond favourably to anti-industry ads. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether state level involvement in tobacco production appears to limit the effectiveness of anti-industry ads to prevent tobacco use among adolescents in the USA. DESIGN: Time trend analyses were done using repeated cross sectional data from six waves of the Legacy Media Tracking Survey, which were collected between 1999 and 2003. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 28,307 adolescents, ages 12-17 years, were classified as living in: tobacco producing states (TPS) (n = 1929); non-tobacco producing states (non-TPS) with low tobacco control funding comparable to TPS (n = 5323); non-TPS with relatively high funding (n = 15,076); and non-TPS with established anti-industry ad campaigns (n = 5979). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reactions to anti-industry ads; strength of anti-industry attitudes/beliefs; changes in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs over time. RESULTS: Ad reactions did not differ by state type. Multivariate adjusted time trend analyses indicated significant, comparable increases in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs since the onset of the truth campaign, in both TPS and non-TPS. Mediation analyses indicated that these increases were due, in part, to campaign exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions appear to be as responsive to anti-industry ads as their counterparts in non-tobacco producing regions. This study provides further evidence for the effectiveness of such ads.
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Cheryl G Healton; Kevin C Davis; Peter Messeri; James C Hersey; M Lyndon Haviland Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Allison Kennedy; Sarah Sullivan; Yogi Hendlin; Richard Barnes; Stanton Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kristen T Emory; Karen Messer; Lisa Vera; Norma Ojeda; John P Elder; Paula Usita; John P Pierce Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Kamala Swayampakala; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Hua-Hie Yong; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Dean Krugman; Abraham Brown; Ron Borland; James Hardin Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2014-05-21