John P Pierce1,2, James D Sargent3, David B Portnoy4, Martha White1, Madison Noble1,2, Sheila Kealey1, Nicolette Borek4, Charles Carusi5, Kelvin Choi6, Victoria R Green7,8, Annette R Kaufman9, Eric Leas1,2, M Jane Lewis10, Katherine A Margolis4, Karen Messer1,2, Yuyan Shi1,2, Marushka L Silveira7,8, Kimberly Snyder4, Cassandra A Stanton5,11, Susanne E Tanski3, Maansi Bansal-Travers12, Dennis Trinidad1,2, Andrew Hyland12. 1. Cancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego. 3. C. Everett Koop Institute, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 4. Center for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 5. Westat, Rockville, Maryland. 6. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, Maryland. 9. Tobacco Control Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. 10. Department of Health Education and Behavioral Science, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 11. Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 12. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Health Behavior, Buffalo, New York.
Abstract
Importance: Cigarette marketing contributes to initiation of cigarette smoking among young people, which has led to restrictions on use of cigarette advertising. However, little is known about other tobacco advertising and progression to tobacco use in youth and young adults. Objective: To investigate whether receptivity to tobacco advertising among youth and young adults is associated with progression (being a susceptible never user or ever user) to use of the product advertised, as well as conventional cigarette smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study at wave 1 (2013-2014) and 1-year follow-up at wave 2 (2014-2015) was conducted in a US population-based sample of never tobacco users aged 12 to 24 years from wave 1 of the PATH Study (N = 10 989). Household interviews using audio computer-assisted self-interviews were conducted. Exposures: Advertising for conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, and smokeless tobacco products at wave 1. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression to susceptibility or ever tobacco use at 1-year follow-up in wave 2. Results: Of the 10 989 participants (5410 male [weighted percentage, 48.3%]; 5579 female [weighted percentage, 51.7%]), receptivity to any tobacco advertising at wave 1 was high for those aged 12 to 14 years (44.0%; 95% confidence limit [CL], 42.6%-45.4%) but highest for those aged 18 to 21 years (68.7%; 95% CL, 64.9%-72.2%). e-Cigarette advertising had the highest receptivity among all age groups. For those aged 12 to 17 years, susceptibility to use a product at wave 1 was significantly associated with product use at wave 2 for conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco products. Among committed never users aged 12 to 17 years at wave 1, any receptivity was associated with progression toward use of the product at wave 2 (conventional cigarettes: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CL, 1.23-1.65; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.62; 95% CL, 1.41-1.85; cigars: AOR, 2.01; 95% CL, 1.62-2.49; and smokeless [males only]: AOR, 1.42; 95% CL, 1.07-1.89) and with use of the product (conventional cigarettes: AOR, 1.54; 95% CL, 1.03-2.32; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.45; 95% CL, 1.19-1.75; cigars: AOR, 2.07; 95% CL, 1.26-3.40). Compared with those not receptive to any product advertising, receptivity to e-cigarette advertising, but not to cigarette advertising, was independently associated with those aged 12 to 21 years having used a cigarette at wave 2 (AOR, 1.60; 95% CL, 1.08-2.38). Conclusions and Relevance: Receptivity to tobacco advertising was significantly associated with progression toward use in adolescents. Receptivity was highest for e-cigarette advertising and was associated with trying a cigarette.
Importance: Cigarette marketing contributes to initiation of cigarette smoking among young people, which has led to restrictions on use of cigarette advertising. However, little is known about other tobacco advertising and progression to tobacco use in youth and young adults. Objective: To investigate whether receptivity to tobacco advertising among youth and young adults is associated with progression (being a susceptible never user or ever user) to use of the product advertised, as well as conventional cigarette smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study at wave 1 (2013-2014) and 1-year follow-up at wave 2 (2014-2015) was conducted in a US population-based sample of never tobacco users aged 12 to 24 years from wave 1 of the PATH Study (N = 10 989). Household interviews using audio computer-assisted self-interviews were conducted. Exposures: Advertising for conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, and smokeless tobacco products at wave 1. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression to susceptibility or ever tobacco use at 1-year follow-up in wave 2. Results: Of the 10 989 participants (5410 male [weighted percentage, 48.3%]; 5579 female [weighted percentage, 51.7%]), receptivity to any tobacco advertising at wave 1 was high for those aged 12 to 14 years (44.0%; 95% confidence limit [CL], 42.6%-45.4%) but highest for those aged 18 to 21 years (68.7%; 95% CL, 64.9%-72.2%). e-Cigarette advertising had the highest receptivity among all age groups. For those aged 12 to 17 years, susceptibility to use a product at wave 1 was significantly associated with product use at wave 2 for conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco products. Among committed never users aged 12 to 17 years at wave 1, any receptivity was associated with progression toward use of the product at wave 2 (conventional cigarettes: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CL, 1.23-1.65; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.62; 95% CL, 1.41-1.85; cigars: AOR, 2.01; 95% CL, 1.62-2.49; and smokeless [males only]: AOR, 1.42; 95% CL, 1.07-1.89) and with use of the product (conventional cigarettes: AOR, 1.54; 95% CL, 1.03-2.32; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.45; 95% CL, 1.19-1.75; cigars: AOR, 2.07; 95% CL, 1.26-3.40). Compared with those not receptive to any product advertising, receptivity to e-cigarette advertising, but not to cigarette advertising, was independently associated with those aged 12 to 21 years having used a cigarette at wave 2 (AOR, 1.60; 95% CL, 1.08-2.38). Conclusions and Relevance: Receptivity to tobacco advertising was significantly associated with progression toward use in adolescents. Receptivity was highest for e-cigarette advertising and was associated with trying a cigarette.
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: Tushar Singh; Israel T Agaku; René A Arrazola; Kristy L Marynak; Linda J Neff; Italia T Rolle; Brian A King Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Dale S Mantey; Maria R Cooper; Stephanie L Clendennen; Keryn E Pasch; Cheryl L Perry Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: David R Strong; Karen Messer; Sheri J Hartman; Jesse Nodora; Lisa Vera; Martha M White; Eric Leas; Nikolas Pharris-Ciurej; Nicolette Borek; John P Pierce Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2017-10
Authors: Thomas A Wills; Rebecca Knight; James D Sargent; Frederick X Gibbons; Ian Pagano; Rebecca J Williams Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Mark Conner; Sarah Grogan; Ruth Simms-Ellis; Keira Flett; Bianca Sykes-Muskett; Lisa Cowap; Rebecca Lawton; Christopher J Armitage; David Meads; Carole Torgerson; Robert West; Kamran Siddiqi Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jessica L King; Allison Lazard; Beth A Reboussin; Leah Ranney; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Kimberly G Wagoner; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Daniel S Kreitzberg; Josephine T Hinds; Keryn E Pasch; Alexandra Loukas; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Olufunmilayo H Obisesan; Albert D Osei; S M Iftekhar Uddin; Omar Dzaye; Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk; Andrew Stokes; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Marushka L Silveira; Kevin P Conway; Colm D Everard; Hwa Y Sim; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 4.018