Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Mar;95(3):425-31.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.049692.

Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence

Matthew C Farrelly  1 , Kevin C Davis, M Lyndon Haviland, Peter Messeri, Cheryl G Healton
Affiliations

Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence

Matthew C Farrelly et al. Am J Public Health. 2005 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: In early 2000, the American Legacy Foundation launched the national "truth" campaign, the first national antismoking campaign to discourage tobacco use among youths. We studied the impact of the campaign on national smoking rates among US youths (students in grades 8, 10, and 12).

Methods: We used data from the Monitoring the Future survey in a pre/post quasi-experimental design to relate trends in youth smoking prevalence to varied doses of the "truth" campaign in a national sample of approximately 50000 students in grades 8, 10, and 12, surveyed each spring from 1997 through 2002.

Results: Findings indicate that the campaign accounted for a significant portion of the recent decline in youth smoking prevalence. We found that smoking prevalence among all students declined from 25.3% to 18.0% between 1999 and 2002 and that the campaign accounted for approximately 22% of this decline.

Conclusions: This study showed that the campaign was associated with substantial declines in youth smoking and has accelerated recent declines in youth smoking prevalence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
How media markets across the country (only 48 states shown) were exposed to various levels or doses of the national “truth” campaign, 2000–2002. Ratings given are in gross rating points.
FIGURE 2—
FIGURE 2—
Odds ratios for smoking at varying levels of “truth” campaign exposure among all grades, overall and by year.…Note. GRP = gross rating point.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Farrelly MC, Niederdeppe J, Yarsevich J. Youth tobacco prevention mass media campaigns: past, present, and future directions. Tob Control. 2003;12(suppl 1): i35–i47. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel M. Antismoking advertising: figuring out what works. J Health Commun. 2002;7(2):157–162. - PubMed
    1. Wakefield M, Flay B, Nichter M, Giovino G. Effects of anti-smoking advertising on youth smoking: a review. J Health Commun. 2003;8(3):229–247. - PubMed
    1. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998–2000. JAMA. 2000;284:723–728. - PubMed
    1. Sly DF, Hopkins RS, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:233–238. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms