The media environment is a key structural factor that influences population knowledge, attitudes, norms, and health behaviors. This study examined changes in tobacco-related advertising for adolescents in California between 2017-18 and 2019-20, a period of significant advertising activities both promoting and discouraging tobacco use, from the tobacco industry and public health authorities, respectively.
Design
Repeated cross-sectional study.
Setting
California Student Tobacco Survey in 2017-18 and 2019-20.
Subjects
Eighth, 10th, and 12th grade students (138 528 in 2017-18 and 160 350 in 2019-20).
Measures
Self-report of exposure to and perception of whether advertisements mostly encouraged (pro) or discouraged (anti) vaping [or smoking].
Analysis
Weighted percentages of ad exposure and ratios of anti-over-pro ads in 2017-18 and 2019-20 were compared.
Results
The proportion of students reporting vape-related advertisement exposure increased from 42.2% in 2017-18 to 67.1% in 2019-20 (P < .001); those reporting cigarette-related advertisement exposure decreased (from 64.6% to 51.2%, P < .001). The ratio of anti-over-pro advertisement perception for vapes increased (from 1.43 to 2.28, P < .001) and the ratio for cigarettes decreased (from 3.75 to 2.55, P < .001).
Conclusions
Advertising activities from both the tobacco industry and public health authorities have reached adolescents. Adolescents’ overall perception was that the tobacco-related media environment, while being generally anti-tobacco, had become more anti-vaping and less anti-smoking. The effects of these advertisements on tobacco use behaviors merit further investigation.
MiechRAJohnstonLDPatrickMEO’MalleyPMBachmanJGSchulenbergJE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2022: Secondary School Students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2023. Published online.
2.
Park-LeeE. Notes from the field: E-cigarette and nicotine pouch use among middle and high school students — United States, 2024. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73(35):774-778. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7335a3
3.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2016.
4.
CohenDAScribnerRAFarleyTA. A structural model of health behavior: a pragmatic approach to explain and influence health behaviors at the population level. Prev Med. 2000;30(2):146-154. doi:10.1006/pmed.1999.0609
5.
WakefieldMALokenBHornikRC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010;376(9748):1261-1271. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4
6.
National Cancer Institute. The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. In: Tobacco Control Monograph No. 19. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute; 2008.
7.
BrownAMoodieC. The influence of tobacco marketing on adolescent smoking intentions via normative beliefs. Health Educ Res. 2009;24(4):721-733. doi:10.1093/her/cyp007
8.
KreitzbergDSHerreraALLoukasAPaschKE. Exposure to tobacco and nicotine product advertising: associations with perceived prevalence of use among college students. J Am Coll Health. 2018;66(8):790-798. doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.1454925
WeldingKMarynakKLTriggerSKelleyDJewlerLKennedyRD. ENDS advertising expenditures in English language media in the USA, 2015–2020. Tob Control. 2024;33(1):122-125. doi:10.1136/tc-2022-057279
DuanZWangYEmerySLChaloupkaFJKimYHuangJ. Exposure to e-cigarette TV advertisements among U.S. youth and adults, 2013–2019. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251203
13.
McAfeeTDavisKCAlexanderRLPechacekTFBunnellR. Effect of the first federally funded US antismoking national media campaign. Lancet. 2013;382(9909):2003-2011. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61686-4
14.
PophamWJPotterLDHetrickMAMuthénLKDuerrJMJohnsonMD. Effectiveness of the California 1990–1991 tobacco education media campaign. Am J Prev Med. 1994;10(6):319-326.
BrubachAL. The case and context for “the real cost” campaign. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(2):S5-S8. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.07.042
17.
MacMonegleAJNonnemakerJDukeJC, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of the real cost campaign’s effect on smoking prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(3):319-325. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.05.006
18.
FarrellyMCDavisKCHavilandMLMesseriPHealtonCG. Evidence of a dose—response relationship between “truth” antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(3):425-431. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.049692
ZellerM. Evolving “the real cost” campaign to address the rising epidemic of youth E-cigarette use. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(2):S76-S78. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.005
NoarSMRohdeJAPrentice-DunnHKresovichAHallMGBrewerNT. Evaluating the actual and perceived effectiveness of E-cigarette prevention advertisements among adolescents. Addict Behav. 2020;109:106473. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106473
25.
HairECKreslakeJMRathJMPitzerLBennettMValloneD. Early evidence of the associations between an anti-e-cigarette mass media campaign and e-cigarette knowledge and attitudes: results from a cross-sectional study of youth and young adults. Tob Control. 2023;32(2):179-187. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056047
26.
StevensEMHébertETKeller-HamiltonB, et al.Associations between exposure to the real cost campaign, pro-tobacco advertisements, and tobacco use among youth in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(5):706-710. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2020.11.006
27.
HuangJDuanZKwokJ, et al.Vaping versus JUULing: how the extraordinary growth and marketing of JUUL transformed the US retail e-cigarette market. Tob Control. 2019;28(2):146-151. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054382
28.
WangYDuanZWeaverSR, et al.Association of e-cigarette advertising, parental influence, and peer influence with US adolescent e-cigarette use. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2233938. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.33938
29.
MacMonegleAJSmithAADukeJ, et al.Effects of a national campaign on youth beliefs and perceptions about electronic cigarettes and smoking. Prev Chronic Dis. 2022;19:E16. doi:10.5888/pcd19.210332
30.
ChoYJThrasherJFReidJLHitchmanSHammondD. Youth self-reported exposure to and perceptions of vaping advertisements: findings from the 2017 international tobacco control youth tobacco and vaping survey. Prev Med. 2019;126:105775. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105775
31.
EastKTaylorESimonavičiusE, et al.Noticing education campaigns or public health messages about vaping among youth in the United States, Canada and England from 2018 to 2022. Health Educ Res. 2024;39(1):12-28. doi:10.1093/her/cyad044
32.
WeissJWCenSSchusterDV, et al.Longitudinal effects of pro-tobacco and anti-tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2006;8(3):455-465. doi:10.1080/14622200600670454
33.
ChoYJThrasherJFDriezenPHitchmanSCReidJLHammondD. Trends in exposure to and perceptions of e-cigarette marketing among youth in England, Canada and the United States between 2017 and 2019. Health Educ Res. 2021;36(6):657-668. doi:10.1093/her/cyab039
34.
ZhuSHGamstAZhuangYL, et al.Technical report on analytic methods and approaches used in the California student tobacco survey 2017-2018. In: Center for Research and Intervention in Tobacco Control (CRITC). San Diego: University of California; 2019.
35.
ZhuSHGamstAZhuangYL, et al.Technical report on analytic methods and approaches used in the California student tobacco survey 2019-2020. In: Center for Research and Intervention in Tobacco Control (CRITC). San Diego: University of California; 2021.
36.
FleissJLevinBPaikM. Statistical inference for a single proportion. In: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004, pp. 17-49. doi:10.1002/0471445428.ch2
ShaoJTuD. The Jackknife and bootstrap. Corr. 2nd ed.Springer Science & Business Media; 1995.
39.
PaparoditisEPolitisDN. Bootstrap hypothesis testing in regression models. Stat Probab Lett. 2005;74(4):356-365. doi:10.1016/j.spl.2005.04.057
40.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS for windows, version 9.4. Published online 2013.
41.
LiXKaiserNBorodovskyJT, et al.National trends of adolescent exposure to tobacco advertisements: 2012–2020. Pediatrics. 2021;148(6):e2021050495. doi:10.1542/peds.2021-050495
42.
MacMonegleABennettMSpeerJL, et al.Evaluating the real cost digital and social media campaign: longitudinal effects of campaign exposure on e-cigarette beliefs. Nicotine Tob Res. 2024;26(Supplement_1):S19-S26.
43.
DelahantyJGanzOBernatJK, et al.Awareness of “the real cost” campaign among US middle and high school students: national youth tobacco survey, 2017. Public Health Rep. 2020;135(1):82-89. doi:10.1177/0033354919889992
44.
VereenRNKrajewskiTJWuEYZhangJHSanzoNNoarSM. Aided recall of the Real Cost e-cigarette prevention advertisements among a nationally representative sample of adolescents. Prev Med Rep. 2022;28:101864. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101864
45.
RohdeJANoarSMPrentice-DunnHKresovichAHallMG. Comparison of message and effects perceptions for the real cost E-cigarette prevention ads. Health Commun. 2021;36(10):1222-1230. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1749353
