OBJECTIVE: To examine how the intensity and duration of tobacco control advertising relate to adolescent smoking prevalence. METHODS: Australian students (aged 12-17 years) participating in a national survey conducted triennially between 1993 and 2008 (sample size range 12 314-16 611). The outcome measure was students' smoking in the previous 4 weeks collected through anonymous, self-completed surveys. For each student, monthly targeted rating points (TRPs, a measure of television advertising exposure) for tobacco control advertising was calculated for the 3 and 12 months prior to surveying. For each time period, cumulative TRPs exposure and exposure to three intensity levels (≥100 TRPs/month; ≥400 TRPs/month; ≥800 TRPs/month) over increasing durations (eg, 1 month, 2 months, etc) were calculated. Logistic regression examined associations between TRPs and adolescent smoking after controlling for demographic and policy variables. RESULTS: Past 3-month cumulative TRPs were found to have an inverse relationship with smoking prevalence. Low TRPs exposure in the past 12 months was positively associated with adolescent smoking prevalence. However, smoking prevalence reduced with cumulative exposure levels above 5800 cumulative TRPs. Additionally, exposure to ≥400 TRPs/month and ≥800 TRPs/month were associated with reduced likelihood of smoking, although the duration needed for this effect differed for the two intensity levels. When intensity was ≥400 TRPs/month, the odds of smoking only reduced with continuous exposure. When intensity was ≥800 TRPs/month, exposure at levels less than monthly was associated with reductions in smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Both antismoking advertising intensity and duration are important for ensuring reductions in adolescent smoking prevalence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how the intensity and duration of tobacco control advertising relate to adolescent smoking prevalence. METHODS: Australian students (aged 12-17 years) participating in a national survey conducted triennially between 1993 and 2008 (sample size range 12 314-16 611). The outcome measure was students' smoking in the previous 4 weeks collected through anonymous, self-completed surveys. For each student, monthly targeted rating points (TRPs, a measure of television advertising exposure) for tobacco control advertising was calculated for the 3 and 12 months prior to surveying. For each time period, cumulative TRPs exposure and exposure to three intensity levels (≥100 TRPs/month; ≥400 TRPs/month; ≥800 TRPs/month) over increasing durations (eg, 1 month, 2 months, etc) were calculated. Logistic regression examined associations between TRPs and adolescent smoking after controlling for demographic and policy variables. RESULTS: Past 3-month cumulative TRPs were found to have an inverse relationship with smoking prevalence. Low TRPs exposure in the past 12 months was positively associated with adolescent smoking prevalence. However, smoking prevalence reduced with cumulative exposure levels above 5800 cumulative TRPs. Additionally, exposure to ≥400 TRPs/month and ≥800 TRPs/month were associated with reduced likelihood of smoking, although the duration needed for this effect differed for the two intensity levels. When intensity was ≥400 TRPs/month, the odds of smoking only reduced with continuous exposure. When intensity was ≥800 TRPs/month, exposure at levels less than monthly was associated with reductions in smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Both antismoking advertising intensity and duration are important for ensuring reductions in adolescent smoking prevalence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Eric C Leas; Mark G Myers; David R Strong; C Richard Hofstetter; Wael K Al-Delaimy Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kimberley Dunstone; Emily Brennan; Michael D Slater; Helen G Dixon; Sarah J Durkin; Simone Pettigrew; Melanie A Wakefield Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Melanie A Wakefield; Emily Brennan; Kimberley Dunstone; Sarah J Durkin; Helen G Dixon; Simone Pettigrew; Michael D Slater Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Melanie Boeckmann; Daniel Kotz; Lion Shahab; Jamie Brown; Sabrina Kastaun Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 3.390