Table 2

Message type effects of tobacco control mass media campaigns

Authors and location	Study design	Sample Type and Size	Number of Ads (Message Types compared); Description of Ad Messages	Differential effects on recall, knowledge, ad responses, campaign beliefs, quit intentions, or other outcomes?	Differential effects on quitline calls, quit attempts, or quit behaviour?	Which individual characteristics compared across message types? (Differences found?)
Davis et al, 201122 NY state, USA	Forced exposure	Smokers; N=7060	N=32 TV ads (Theme & Method); 10 NHE (why-to-quit)-graphic 15 NHE (why-to-quit)-testimonial 8 HTQ 4 AI	AR: NHE-graphic > NHE-testimonial, AI & HTQ; NHE-testimonial > HTQ & AI	NA	Consumption (AR: YES) Gender (AR: YES) Age (AR: YES) Education (AR: YES) Income (AR: YES) Ethnicity (AR: YES)
Dunlop et al, 200823 Victoria, Australia	Population cross-sectional Post only	Smokers & Recent quitters; N=595	N=12 recalled TV ads (Theme & Method); 6 NHE-graphic 4 NHE-narratives 2 NHE-simulated	R: NHE-graphic > NHE simulated & NHE-narrative Discussion: NHE-graphic & NHE simulated > NHE-narrative	NA	Transportability (R: YES) Education (R: YES) Consumption (R: YES) Discussion (R: NO)
Dunlop et al, 201024 Victoria, Australia	Forced exposure	Smokers; N=121	N=2 storyboard ads (Theme & Method); 1 NHE-narrative 1 NHE-informative	AR: NHE-narrative > NHE-informative on positive cognitions. No differences on self referencing or emotional responding QI: NO	NA	NA
Durkin et al, 200910 MA, USA	Population cohort – 2 yr follow-up	Smokers; N=1491	N=134 TV ads (Emotion & Method); 51% GRPs High Emotion and/or Testimonial (Majority NHE); 49% GRPs neither High Emotion or Testimonial (Mostly AI or Social Norms)	NA	QB: High Emotion and/or Testimonial ads increased odds; Ads with neither High Emotion nor Testimonials not associated.	SES (QB: YES)
Durkin et al, 201125 Victoria, Australia	Quitline – 2 yrs	N=33719 calls	N=13 TV ads (Emotion & Method); 4 Higher Emotion-High Narrative 2 Higher Emotion-Low Narrative 3 Lower Emotion-High Narrative 4 Lower Emotion-Low Narrative	NA	QL: NHE's with Higher Emotion & High Narrative > Lower Emotion & High Narrative > Higher Emotion & Low Narrative. No effect of Lower Emotion & Low Narrative on calls	SES (QL: YES)
Farrelly et al, 201126 New York, USA	Quitline – 9 yrs	N=2000 to 250000 calls per year	N=126 TV ads (Theme & Method); Theme: 96 cessation & 30 SHS Method: 10 NHE-Graphic only; 27 NHE-Negative Emotion; 14 NHE-Graphic & Negative Emotion; 75 Neither Graphic nor Negative Emotion	NA	QL: Cessation > SHS; NHE-Graphic only & Neither associated with increased call volume. Trend for both NHE-Graphic and Negative Emotion (p=.089). No effect of NHE-Negative Emotion on calls.	NA
Kang et al, 200927 Pennsylvania, USA	Forced exposure	Smokers; N=96	N=12 TV ads (Stylistic features); 2 (argument strength) x 2 (smoking cue) – 3 of each kind	Smk urges: Smoking cues increased urges only for low argument strength msgs. Heart rate: smoking cues decreased rate only for low argument strength msgs. Skin conductance: NO	NA	Gender (Smk urges: YES; Heart rate: NO; Skin conduct: YES)
Langleben et al, 200928 Pennsylvania, USA	Forced exposure	Smokers; N=18	N=8 TV ads (Stylistic features); 4 high message sensation value 4 low message sensation value (MSV)	R: recognition accuracy: low MSV > high MSV R: recognition response time: low MSV > high MSV	NA	NA
Leshner et al, 200929 Midwest, USA	Forced exposure	Young Adult Smokers (N=7) and Non-smokers (N=66)	N=24 TV ads (Stylistic features); Frame x Theme x Outcome extremity	Processing: Most extreme loss-framed msgs> others. No effect of theme.	NA	NA
Mosbaek et al, 200730 Oregan, USA	Quitline – 2 yrs & 5 mths	N∼=5300 calls	N=7 TV & 5 radio ads (Theme &Method); 1 TV HTQ; 2 TV & 2 Radio NHE-reasons to quit; 2 TV & 1 Radio NHE-Family Testimonial; 1 TV & 1 Radio NHE-Smoker Testimonial 1 TV SHS; 1 Radio NHE-Smokeless User Testimonial	NA	QL: Daytime TV: HTQ &NHE-reasons to quit > Others. Evening TV: NHE-Family Testimonial > Others. Radio: NHE-reasons to quit & NHE-Family Testimonial > Others	NA
Murphy-Hoefer et al, 200831 32 1 Northern & 1 Southern USA city	Forced-exposure	Young Adults (64% non-smokers); N=1020	N=12 TV ads (Theme & Method); 3 Themes (Social Norm; NHE; AI) x 4 Methods (Humour, Sarcasm, Testimonial, Drama)	AR: NHE-Drama > Others K & CTB: NHE & AI > Social Norms QI: NO, but indication NHE > AI > Social Norms	NA	Gender (K & CTB: NO)
Niederdeppe et al, 200813 Wisconsin, USA	Population Cohort – 1 yr follow-up	Smokers; N=452	N=2 TV ads, Theme: 1 KTQ 1 NHE-SHS		QA: NO QB: NO	Education (QA: YES; QB: NO) Income (QA: NO; QB: NO)
Niederdeppe et al, 201133	Population cross-sectional survey & Forced exposure	Smokers; N=7060	N=32 TV ads (Theme & Method); 10 NHE (why-to-quit)-graphic 15 NHE (why-to-quit)-testimonial 7 HTQ 4 AI	R: NHE-testimonial > AI > NHE-graphic > HTQ AR: NHE-graphic > Others; HTQ < Others	Quit Intentions (R: YES; AR: YES)	Education (R: YES) Education (AR: YES) Income (R: NO) Income (AR: NO)
Rhodes et al, 200834 Southeast USA	Forced exposure	Young Adult Non-smokers (N=96) and Smokers (N=70)	N=12 TV ads (Theme); 2 Social Norms 3 SHS-informative 3 NHE 3 NHE-SHS 3 AI	AR: NHE-SHS > Others; AI > Social Norms, SHS-informative QI: NO	NA	NA
Samu et al, 200835	Forced exposure	Young Adults (73% non-smokers); Study 1 N=102 Study 2 N=143	N=4 TV ads (Emotion & Theme); 2 High fear NHE 2 Low fear AI	AR: NO CTB: High fear NHE > Low fear AI in Study 2 QI: NO	NA	Gender (AR: NO in Study 1; YES in Study 2. CTB: NO in Study 1; YES in Study 2. QI: NO in Study 1; YES in Study 2)
Strasser et al, 200936 Pennsylvania, USA	Forced exposure	Smokers; N=199	N=16 TV ads (Stylistic Features); 4 High MsgSens Value (MSV), High Argument Strength (AS) 4 High MSV, Low AS 4 Low MSV, High AS 4 Low MSV, Low AS	CTB: MIXED QI: NO Physiological arousal: High AS > Low AS Emotional response: High MSV > Low MSV	NA	Sensation Seeking (SS) (CTB: For low SS low MSV > high MSV, for high SS high MSV > low MSV. QI: NO)
Vallone et al, 201016 Michigan, USA	Population Cohort – 6 mth follow-up	Smokers: N=212	N=3 TV ads (Type); 1 HTQ ‘EX’ by Legacy Foundation 1 HTQ ‘Quit Assist’ by Phillip Morris 1 HTQ ‘My Time to Quit’ by Pfizer	AR: MIXED, EX > Others	QA: Trend for ‘EX’; No effect of‘ My Time to Quit’; Neg effect of ‘Quit Assist’	NA
Vallone et al, 201117 Michigan, USA	Population Cohort – 6 mth follow-up	Smokers: N=4067	N=3 TV ads (Type); 1 HTQ ‘EX’ by Legacy Foundation 1 HTQ ‘Quit Assist’ by Phillip Morris 1 HTQ ‘My Time to Quit’ by Pfizer	R: NO AR: EX > Others	QA: EX > Others; Effect for EX; No effect of others QB: Trend for EX	NA
Veer et al, 200837 South-Western USA	Forced-exposure	Young adult smokers N=200	N=2 TV ads (Theme); 1 HTQ (“self-liberating”) 1 NHE (“consciousness-raising”)	AR: Main effects not reported	NA	Quit Intention (AR: NHE > HTQ among those with low intentions, HTQ > NHE among those contemplating quitting within next 6 mths)

AI, Anti-industry; HTQ, How-to-Quit; KTQ, Keep Trying to Quit; NHE, Negative Health Effects; SHS, Second-Hand Smoke. AR, Ad Responses (includes all measures of emotional and cognitive responding); CTB, Campaign Targeted Beliefs (includes all measures of beliefs and attitudes); K, Knowledge; QA, Quit Attempts; QB; Quitting Behaviour; QI: Quitting Intentions; QL, Quitline Calls; R, Recall; other campaign outcomes specified. N, Number of participants; NA, Not Applicable, SES, Socio-Economic Status. Mth, Month; Yr, Year. Note: Acronyms for all outcomes measures are bolded.