OBJECTIVE: African Americans currently bear the greatest burden of morbidity and mortality due to smoking, and exposure to pro-tobacco media messages predicts smoking. This study compared the concentration (proportion of media messages that are for tobacco) and density (pro-tobacco media messages per person) of pro-tobacco media messages between African American and Caucasian markets. METHODS: We searched Medline (1966 to June 2006), PsychINFO (1974 to June 2006), and CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) for studies from peer-reviewed journals directly comparing the volume of pro-tobacco media messages in African American and Caucasian markets. From each study, we extracted the number of total media messages, the number of tobacco-related messages, and the number of residents living in each market area. We calculated the concentration and density of tobacco advertising in each market. RESULTS: Out of 131 studies identified, 11 met eligibility criteria, including seven comparing billboard/signage in African American and Caucasian markets and four comparing magazine advertising in African American and Caucasian markets. Meta-analysis estimated a pooled odds ratio of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 2.6) for a given billboard being smoking-related in African American vs. Caucasian market areas (i.e., concentration). The pooled rate ratio of the density of smoking-related billboards was 2.6 (95% CI 1.5, 4.7) in African American vs. Caucasian market areas. Magazine data were insufficient for meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Available data indicated that African Americans are exposed to a higher volume of pro-tobacco advertising in terms of both concentration and density. These findings have important implications for research, policy measures, and educational interventions involving racial disparities due to tobacco.
OBJECTIVE: African Americans currently bear the greatest burden of morbidity and mortality due to smoking, and exposure to pro-tobacco media messages predicts smoking. This study compared the concentration (proportion of media messages that are for tobacco) and density (pro-tobacco media messages per person) of pro-tobacco media messages between African American and Caucasian markets. METHODS: We searched Medline (1966 to June 2006), PsychINFO (1974 to June 2006), and CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) for studies from peer-reviewed journals directly comparing the volume of pro-tobacco media messages in African American and Caucasian markets. From each study, we extracted the number of total media messages, the number of tobacco-related messages, and the number of residents living in each market area. We calculated the concentration and density of tobacco advertising in each market. RESULTS: Out of 131 studies identified, 11 met eligibility criteria, including seven comparing billboard/signage in African American and Caucasian markets and four comparing magazine advertising in African American and Caucasian markets. Meta-analysis estimated a pooled odds ratio of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 2.6) for a given billboard being smoking-related in African American vs. Caucasian market areas (i.e., concentration). The pooled rate ratio of the density of smoking-related billboards was 2.6 (95% CI 1.5, 4.7) in African American vs. Caucasian market areas. Magazine data were insufficient for meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Available data indicated that African Americans are exposed to a higher volume of pro-tobacco advertising in terms of both concentration and density. These findings have important implications for research, policy measures, and educational interventions involving racial disparities due to tobacco.
Authors: Melanie A Wakefield; Yvonne M Terry-McElrath; Frank J Chaloupka; Dianne C Barker; Sandy J Slater; Pamela I Clark; Gary A Giovino Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Cendrine D Robinson; Wallace B Pickworth; Stephen J Heishman; David W Wetter; Paul M Cinciripini; Yisheng Li; Brigid Rowell; Andrew J Waters Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: A Feinberg; P M Lopez; K Wyka; N Islam; L Seidl; E Drackett; A Mata; J Pinzon; M R Baker; J Lopez; C Trinh-Shevrin; D Shelley; Z Bailey; K A Maybank; L E Thorpe Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Tanya Agurs-Collins; Susan Persky; Electra D Paskett; Shari L Barkin; Helen I Meissner; Tonja R Nansel; Sonia S Arteaga; Xinzhi Zhang; Rina Das; Tilda Farhat Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lesia M Ruglass; James C Root; Naomi Dambreville; Alina Shevorykin; Noshin Haque; Vicki Sun; Christine E Sheffer; Robert D Melara Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 1.798