Samir Soneji1,2, JaeWon Yang3, Meghan Bridgid Moran4, Andy S L Tan5, James Sargent1,2, Kristin E Knutzen2, Kelvin Choi6. 1. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH. 2. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH. 3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI. 4. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 5. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 6. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in engagement with online tobacco and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) marketing (online tobacco marketing) among adolescents in the United States between 2013 and 2015. METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of six forms of engagement with online tobacco marketing, both overall and by brand, among adolescents sampled in Wave 1 (2013-2014; n = 13651) and Wave 2 (2014-2015; n = 12172) of the nationally representative Population Assessment for Tobacco and Health Study. Engagement was analyzed by tobacco use status: non-susceptible never tobacco users; susceptible never tobacco users; ever tobacco users, but not within the past year; and past-year tobacco users. RESULTS: Among all adolescents, the estimated prevalence of engagement with at least one form of online tobacco marketing increased from 8.7% in 2013-2014 to 20.9% in 2014-2015. The estimated prevalence of engagement also increased over time across all tobacco use statuses (eg, from 10.5% to 26.6% among susceptible adolescents). Brand-specific engagement increased over time for cigarette, cigar, and e-cigarette brands. CONCLUSION: Engagement with online tobacco marketing, both for tobacco and e-cigarettes, increased almost twofold over time. This increase emphasizes the dynamic nature of online tobacco marketing and its ability to reach youth. The Food and Drug Administration, in cooperation with social networking sites, should consider new approaches to regulate this novel form of marketing. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to estimate the national prevalence of engagement with online tobacco marketing among adolescents over time. The estimated prevalence of this engagement approximately doubled between 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 among all adolescents and, notably, among adolescents at relatively low risk to initiate tobacco use. This increase in engagement could represent public health harm if it results in increased initiation and use of tobacco products. Stronger federal regulation of online tobacco marketing and tighter control of access to tobacco-related content by social media sites could reduce adolescents' exposure to and engagement with online tobacco marketing.
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in engagement with online tobacco and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) marketing (online tobacco marketing) among adolescents in the United States between 2013 and 2015. METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of six forms of engagement with online tobacco marketing, both overall and by brand, among adolescents sampled in Wave 1 (2013-2014; n = 13651) and Wave 2 (2014-2015; n = 12172) of the nationally representative Population Assessment for Tobacco and Health Study. Engagement was analyzed by tobacco use status: non-susceptible never tobacco users; susceptible never tobacco users; ever tobacco users, but not within the past year; and past-year tobacco users. RESULTS: Among all adolescents, the estimated prevalence of engagement with at least one form of online tobacco marketing increased from 8.7% in 2013-2014 to 20.9% in 2014-2015. The estimated prevalence of engagement also increased over time across all tobacco use statuses (eg, from 10.5% to 26.6% among susceptible adolescents). Brand-specific engagement increased over time for cigarette, cigar, and e-cigarette brands. CONCLUSION: Engagement with online tobacco marketing, both for tobacco and e-cigarettes, increased almost twofold over time. This increase emphasizes the dynamic nature of online tobacco marketing and its ability to reach youth. The Food and Drug Administration, in cooperation with social networking sites, should consider new approaches to regulate this novel form of marketing. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to estimate the national prevalence of engagement with online tobacco marketing among adolescents over time. The estimated prevalence of this engagement approximately doubled between 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 among all adolescents and, notably, among adolescents at relatively low risk to initiate tobacco use. This increase in engagement could represent public health harm if it results in increased initiation and use of tobacco products. Stronger federal regulation of online tobacco marketing and tighter control of access to tobacco-related content by social media sites could reduce adolescents' exposure to and engagement with online tobacco marketing.
Authors: Samir Soneji; John P Pierce; Kelvin Choi; David B Portnoy; Katherine A Margolis; Cassandra A Stanton; Rhonda J Moore; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Charles Carusi; Andrew Hyland; James Sargent Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Tushar Singh; Kristy Marynak; René A Arrazola; Shanna Cox; Italia V Rolle; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Bridget K Ambrose; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Elizabeth Lambert; Charles Carusi; Kristie Taylor; Scott Crosse; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; David Abrams; John P Pierce; James Sargent; Karen Messer; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Ray Niaura; Donna Vallone; David Hammond; Nahla Hilmi; Jonathan Kwan; Andrea Piesse; Graham Kalton; Sharon Lohr; Nick Pharris-Ciurej; Victoria Castleman; Victoria R Green; Greta Tessman; Annette Kaufman; Charles Lawrence; Dana M van Bemmel; Heather L Kimmel; Ben Blount; Ling Yang; Barbara O'Brien; Cindy Tworek; Derek Alberding; Lynn C Hull; Yu-Ching Cheng; David Maklan; Cathy L Backinger; Wilson M Compton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Eric M Clark; Chris A Jones; Jake Ryland Williams; Allison N Kurti; Mitchell Craig Norotsky; Christopher M Danforth; Peter Sheridan Dodds Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annice E Kim; Timothy Hopper; Sean Simpson; James Nonnemaker; Alicea J Lieberman; Heather Hansen; Jamie Guillory; Lauren Porter Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alexandra Loukas; Ellen M Paddock; Xiaoyin Li; Melissa B Harrell; Keryn E Pasch; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Jeffrey Bingenheimer; Shreya Tulsiani; Elizabeth Hair; Donna Vallone; Sarah Mills; Raquel Gerard; William D Evans Journal: Digit Health Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Saida I Coreas; Erik J Rodriquez; Sana G Rahman; Sherine El-Toukhy; Wilson M Compton; Carlos Blanco; Heather L Kimmel; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lijun Wang; Jianjiu Chen; Sai Yin Ho; Lok Tung Leung; Man Ping Wang; Tai Hing Lam Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kristen Giombi; Catherine Viator; Juliana Hoover; Janice Tzeng; Helen W Sullivan; Amie C O'Donoghue; Brian G Southwell; Leila C Kahwati Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240