HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hersey, J C Articles by Messeri, P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hersey, J C Articles by Messeri, P Related Collections Smoking Tobacco use (youth) Smoking cessation

How state counter-industry campaigns help prime perceptions of tobacco industry practices to promote reductions in youth smoking

^2,

¹ RTI International, Washington, DC, USA
² American Legacy Foundation, Washington DC

Correspondence to:
James Hersey
PhD, RTI International, 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 740, Washington, DC 20036, USA; hersey{at}rti.org

ABSTRACT
Objective: This study assessed the impact of state media campaigns that prominently feature counter-industry messages on youth cigarette smoking, beyond the effects of price, secular trends, tobacco control efforts, and the national truth^® campaign.

Methods: Rates of youth smoking were compared in three groups of states: (1) those with long funded counter-industry campaigns (California, Florida, and Massachusetts); (2) states with more recently funded counter-industry media campaigns (Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New Jersey); and (3) other states. An analysis was performed for a series of national telephone surveys of 12–17 year olds between 1999 and 2002, controlling for differences in demographic background, the price of cigarettes, and exposure to the national truth^® campaign.

Results: Between 1999 and 2002, rates of current smoking and established smoking decreased significantly faster in states with established or more newly funded counter-industry campaigns than in other states. State counter-industry campaigns appear to prime, or make more salient, negative perceptions about tobacco industry practices.

Conclusion: Results highlight the value of continued state counter-industry campaigns.

Abbreviations: CA, California; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; FL, Florida; GRP, gross ratings point; IN, Indiana; LMTS, Legacy Media Tracking Survey; MA, Massachusetts; MN, Minnesota; MS, Mississippi; NJ, New Jersey; REBEL, Reaching Everyone by Exposing Lies; SWAT, Students Working Against Tobacco; TUPE, tobacco use prevention education

Keywords: counter-advertising campaigns; youth smoking prevention; state media campaigns; comprehensive tobacco control; priming effects