| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
1 Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
2 RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
3 American Legacy Foundation, Washington DC, USA
Correspondence to:
James F Thrasher
MS, MA, 311 Rosenau Hall, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, CB#7440, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440, USA; thrasher{at}email.unc.edu
Background: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions may not respond favourably to anti-industry ads.
Objective: To examine whether state level involvement in tobacco production appears to limit the effectiveness of anti-industry ads to prevent tobacco use among adolescents in the USA.
Design: Time trend analyses were done using repeated cross sectional data from six waves of the Legacy Media Tracking Survey, which were collected between 1999 and 2003.
Setting and participants: 28 307 adolescents, ages 12–17 years, were classified as living in: tobacco producing states (TPS) (n = 1929); non-tobacco producing states (non-TPS) with low tobacco control funding comparable to TPS (n = 5323); non-TPS with relatively high funding (n = 15 076); and non-TPS with established anti-industry ad campaigns (n = 5979).
Main outcome measures: Reactions to anti-industry ads; strength of anti-industry attitudes/beliefs; changes in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs over time.
Results: Ad reactions did not differ by state type. Multivariate adjusted time trend analyses indicated significant, comparable increases in anti-industry attitudes/beliefs since the onset of the truth® campaign, in both TPS and non-TPS. Mediation analyses indicated that these increases were due, in part, to campaign exposure.
Conclusions: Adolescents who live in tobacco producing regions appear to be as responsive to anti-industry ads as their counterparts in non-tobacco producing regions. This study provides further evidence for the effectiveness of such ads.
Abbreviations: LMTS, Legacy Media Tracking Surveys; TPS, tobacco producing states
Keywords: health communication; tobacco prevention; youth; tobacco production
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. C. Farrelly, K. C. Davis, J. Duke, and P. Messeri Sustaining 'truth': changes in youth tobacco attitudes and smoking intentions after 3 years of a national antismoking campaign Health Educ. Res., January 17, 2008; (2008) cym087v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Thrasher, J. D. Niederdeppe, C. Jackson, and M. C. Farrelly Using anti-tobacco industry messages to prevent smoking among high-risk adolescents Health Educ. Res., July 1, 2006; 21(3): 325 - 337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Pechmann and E. T. Reibling Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches Am J Public Health, May 1, 2006; 96(5): 906 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C Callard, D Thompson, and N Collishaw Transforming the tobacco market: why the supply of cigarettes should be transferred from for-profit corporations to non-profit enterprises with a public health mandate Tob. Control, August 1, 2005; 14(4): 278 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
