Kristen T Emory1, Karen Messer1, Lisa Vera1, Norma Ojeda2, John P Elder3, Paula Usita3, John P Pierce1. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Moores UCSD Cancer Center, La Jolla, California, USA. 2. Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA. 3. San Diego State University, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco industry cigarette advertising is associated with increased adolescent smoking, while counter tobacco advertising is associated with reduced smoking. As these campaigns compete for influence, there is a need to understand their inter-relationship on youth smoking. METHODS: This study reports data from a national population of families (n=1036) with an oldest child aged 10-13 years, identified by random digit dialling. Parent and child dyads completed baseline questionnaires in 2003. Adolescents were resurveyed in 2007-2008 (response rate 74%). Adjusted logistic regression explores associations between receptivity to cigarette and tobacco control advertising and adolescent smoking initiation. RESULTS: In 2007-2008, 57.9% of adolescents reported a favourite tobacco control advertisement and 43.3% reported being receptive to cigarette advertisements. Thirty per cent reported receptivity to cigarette and tobacco control advertisements. Among those receptive to cigarette advertising, having a favourite anti-smoking advertisement had a borderline significant association with a 30% lower smoking rate. Anti-industry tobacco control messages were three times more likely to be favourites of those who were receptive to cigarette advertising than other tobacco control advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Receptivity to tobacco control advertising appeared to ameliorate the promotion of initiation from cigarette advertising. Anti-industry advertising appears to be the most effective counter for tobacco control and should be considered for wider use. A larger longitudinal study is needed to confirm these findings. 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.
BACKGROUND:Tobacco industry cigarette advertising is associated with increased adolescent smoking, while counter tobacco advertising is associated with reduced smoking. As these campaigns compete for influence, there is a need to understand their inter-relationship on youth smoking. METHODS: This study reports data from a national population of families (n=1036) with an oldest child aged 10-13 years, identified by random digit dialling. Parent and child dyads completed baseline questionnaires in 2003. Adolescents were resurveyed in 2007-2008 (response rate 74%). Adjusted logistic regression explores associations between receptivity to cigarette and tobacco control advertising and adolescent smoking initiation. RESULTS: In 2007-2008, 57.9% of adolescents reported a favourite tobacco control advertisement and 43.3% reported being receptive to cigarette advertisements. Thirty per cent reported receptivity to cigarette and tobacco control advertisements. Among those receptive to cigarette advertising, having a favourite anti-smoking advertisement had a borderline significant association with a 30% lower smoking rate. Anti-industry tobacco control messages were three times more likely to be favourites of those who were receptive to cigarette advertising than other tobacco control advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Receptivity to tobacco control advertising appeared to ameliorate the promotion of initiation from cigarette advertising. Anti-industry advertising appears to be the most effective counter for tobacco control and should be considered for wider use. A larger longitudinal study is needed to confirm these findings. 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Advertising and Promotion; Prevention; Priority/Special Populations; Tobacco Industry
Authors: Jie Wu Weiss; Steven Cen; Darleen V Schuster; Jennifer B Unger; C Anderson Johnson; Michele Mouttapa; William S Schreiner; Tess Boley Cruz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John P Pierce; Lisa E James; Karen Messer; Mark G Myers; Rebecca E Williams; Dennis R Trinidad Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: John P Pierce; Karen Messer; Lisa E James; Martha M White; Sheila Kealey; Donna M Vallone; Cheryl G Healton Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David R Strong; Sheri J Hartman; Jesse Nodora; Karen Messer; Lisa James; Martha White; David B Portnoy; Conrad J Choiniere; Genevieve C Vullo; John Pierce Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Brianna A Lienemann; Shyanika W Rose; Jennifer B Unger; Helen I Meissner; M Justin Byron; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Li-Ling Huang; Tess Boley Cruz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg; Melissa J Krauss; Shaina J Sowles; Edward L Spitznagel; Richard Grucza; Frank J Chaloupka; Laura J Bierut Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2016-04
Authors: Kristen Emory; Francisco O Buchting; Dennis R Trinidad; Lisa Vera; Sherry L Emery Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Dawn W Foster; Rani A Hoff; Corey E Pilver; Yvonne H C Yau; Marvin A Steinberg; Jeremy Wampler; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Marc N Potenza Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.913