Presented are cost-effective paid media strategies to educate Californians to advocate for stronger smoke-free multiunit housing (SF-MUH) policies between 2006 and 2008. Included is a summary of general market and specific ethnic market costs that correspond to SF-MUH attitudes and home smoking bans. Statewide questionnaires indicated that half of the intended general market saw an antitobacco TV ad and half of the intended ethnic markets heard radio ads. Analyses indicated that it cost $0.67 and $0.78 per person to see Caution Tape and Apartment TV ads, respectively. Slightly higher per capita costs corresponded with positive attitudes toward SF-MUH: $0.87 for Caution Tape and $1.00 for Apartment. Lessons learned from this campaign included effectiveness of specific ads in ethnic markets, impact on SF-MUH work plan policy objectives, and the need for collaborations among state and local partners throughout the message development process.
Al-DelaimyW. K.WhiteM. M.TrinidadD. R.MesserK.GilmerT.ZhuS. H.. . . PierceJ. P. (2008). The California Tobacco Control Program: can we maintain the progress? Results from the California Tobacco Survey, 1990-2005. Sacramento: California Department of Public Health.
2.
American Lung Association. (2008). Survey of California rural and small town voters. Sacramento, CA: Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing, American Lung Association.
3.
American Lung Association. (2009). Comparison of non-smoking housing units. Sacramento, CA: Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing, American Lung Association.
4.
ArheartK. L.LeeD. J.DietzN. A.WilkinsonJ. D.ClarkJ. D.3rdLeBlancW. G.. . . FlemingL. E. (2008). Declining trends in serum cotinine levels in US worker groups: the power of policy. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50, 57-63.
5.
BarnettP. G. (2009). An improved set of standards for finding cost for cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Care, 47(7 Suppl. 1), S82-S88.
6.
BlossD. (2006). Initiating social justice action through dialogue in a local health department: The Ingham County experience. In HofrichterR. (Ed.), Tackling health inequities through public health practice: a handbook for action (pp. 33-58). Washington, DC: National Association of County & City Health Officials.
7.
BohacD. L.FitzgeraldJ. E.HewettM. J.GrimsrudD. (2007, December). Measured change in multifamily unit air leakage and airflow due to air sealing and ventilation treatments. Paper presented at the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings X International Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL.
8.
California Department of Finance. (2010). Demographic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA: Author.
9.
California Department of Health Services. (1998). A model for change: The California experience in tobacco control. Sacramento: California Department of Health Services.
10.
California Department of Public Health. (2009). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS 1984-1992), and California Adult Tobacco Survey (CATS 1993-2008). Sacramento: California Department of Public Health.
11.
California Department of Public Health. (2010). County and statewide archive of tobacco statistics (C-STATS). Retrieved from http://www.cstats.info/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010b). Tobacco Control State Highlights, 2010. Atlanta, GA: 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.
14.
CowlingD. W.ModayilM. V.StevensC. (2010). Assessing the relationship between ad volume and awareness of a tobacco education media campaign. Tobacco Control, 19(Suppl. 1), i37-i42.
15.
DonaldsonC. (1998). The (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses: Fact or fallacy?Pharmacoeconomics, 13, 389-396.
16.
DorfmanL.WallackL. (1993). Advertising health: The case for counter-ads. Public Health Reports, 108, 716-726.
HealtonC.NelsonK. (2004). Reversal of misfortune: Viewing tobacco as a social justice issue. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 186-191.
20.
Institute of Medicine. (2010). Secondhand smoke exposure and cardiovascular effects: Making sense of the evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
21.
KlepeisN. E.NelsonW. C.OttW. R.RobinsonJ.TsangA. M.SwitzerP.. . . EngelmannW. H. (2001). The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11, 231-252.
22.
National Cancer Institute. (2008). The role of media in promoting and reducing tobacco use (Monograph No. 19; NIH Publication No. 07-6242 ed.). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
23.
PetersonM.ChandleeM.AbrahamA. (2008). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a statewide media campaign to promote adolescent physical activity. Health Promotion Practice, 9, 426-433.
24.
PirkleJ. L.BernertJ. T.CaudillS. P.SosnoffC. S.PechacekT. F. (2006). Trends in the exposure of nonsmokers in the U.S. population to secondhand smoke: 1988-2002. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114, 853-858.
25.
RossH.PowellL. M.BauerJ. E.LevyD. T.PeckR. M.LeeH. R. (2006). Community-based youth tobacco control interventions: Cost effectiveness of the Full Court Press project. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 5, 167-176.
26.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). The Surgeon General’s call to action to promote healthy homes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General.
27.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Fine particle (PM 2.5) designations. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/
