| Model outcome | Event† | ||||||||
| Positive | Negative | Mixed/neutral | |||||||
| OR | p Value | (95% CI) | OR | p Value | (95% CI) | OR | p Value | (95% CI) | |
| Perceived harm | 1.09 | * | (1.01 to 1.17) | 1.01 | (0.88 to 1.17) | 0.99 | (0.87 to 1.12) | ||
| Perceived peer smoking prevalence | 0.93 | (0.81 to 1.06) | 0.99 | (0.75 to 1.29) | 0.91 | (0.70 to 1.19) | |||
| Perceived disapproval | |||||||||
| Moving from “don’t disapprove” to “disapprove” | 1.05 | (0.96 to 1.15) | 0.99 | (0.82 to 1.19) | 1.04 | (0.91 to 1.19) | |||
| Moving from “disapprove” to “strongly disapprove” | 1.00 | (0.93 to 1.07) | 0.99 | (0.86 to 1.13) | 1.00 | (0.90 to 1.12) | |||
| Current smoking | 0.94 | (0.85 to 1.04) | 0.89 | (0.73 to 1.08) | 0.95 | (0.82 to 1.11) | |||
| Coeff | p Value | SE | Coeff | p Value | SE | Coeff | p Value | SE | |
| Consumption among current smokers | −0.03 | 0.04 | −0.16 | + | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.07 | ||
| Commentary† | |||||||||
| Positive | Negative | Mixed/neutral (any) | |||||||
| OR | p Value | (95% CI) | OR | p Value | (95% CI) | OR | p Value | (95% CI) | |
| Perceived harm | 1.03 | (0.84 to 1.28) | 0.76 | (0.52 to 1.12) | 1.00 | (0.94 to 1.06) | |||
| Perceived peer smoking prevalence | 1.22 | (0.81 to 1.84) | 1.85 | (0.83 to 4.12) | 1.12 | * | (1.01 to 1.25) | ||
| Perceived disapproval | |||||||||
| Moving from “don’t disapprove” to “disapprove” | 1.00 | (0.76 to 1.30) | 0.83 | (0.52 to 1.33) | 1.00 | (0.93 to 1.08) | |||
| Moving from “disapprove” to “strongly disapprove” | 1.07 | (0.88 to 1.31) | 0.90 | (0.63 to 1.27) | 0.99 | (0.93 to 1.06) | |||
| Current smoking | 1.22 | (0.91 to 1.65) | 0.93 | (0.54 to 1.61) | 1.06 | (0.98 to 1.16) | |||
| Coeff | p Value | SE | Coeff | p Value | SE | Coeff | p Value | SE | |
| Consumption among current smokers | 0.15 | 0.115 | 0.48 | + | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ||
| Theme† | |||||||||
| OR | p Value | (95% CI) | |||||||
| Secondhand smoke | |||||||||
| Perceived harm | 0.99 | (0.87 to 1.13) | |||||||
| Perceived peer smoking prevalence | 0.80 | + | (0.62 to 1.04) | ||||||
| Perceived disapproval | |||||||||
| Moving from “don’t disapprove” to “disapprove” | 1.05 | (0.88 to 1.25) | |||||||
| Moving from “disapprove” to “strongly disapprove” | 1.06 | (0.93 to 1.21) | |||||||
| Current smoking | 0.87 | (0.72 to 1.04) | |||||||
| Coeff | p Value | SE | |||||||
| Consumption among current smokers | −0.03 | 0.09 | |||||||
All models controlled for gender, grade, race/ethnicity, average parental education, presence of both parents in the household, GPA, nights out, truancy, earned income, state youth smoking prevalence, state smoke-free air index value, state cigarette price, region, and year. News coverage expressed as five-month sums of total monthly tobacco-related articles, adjusted for newspaper penetration rates per zip code, and rescaled by 0.10 to facilitate estimate interpretation. +p<0.10; *p<0.05.
†Event, commentary and theme variables included simultaneously, and all (excluding the dichotomous any/none mixed/neutral commentary) were continuous five-month sums of newspaper articles per community. “Positive” refers to events or commentary supportive of tobacco control efforts; “negative” refers to events or commentary that would be viewed as setbacks from a tobacco-control perspective. “Mixed/neutral” events and commentary are those where the implications for tobacco control efforts are unclear.