 |
|
The Extent to Which Tobacco Marketing and Tobacco Use in Films Contribute to Children's Use of Tobacco
A Meta-analysis
Robert J. Wellman, PhD;
David B. Sugarman, PhD;
Joseph R. DiFranza, MD;
Jonathan P. Winickoff, MD, MPH
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:1285-1296.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To quantify the effect of exposure on initiation of tobacco use among adolescents.
Data Sources A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, ABI/INFORM, and Business Source Premier through October/November 2005 was conducted. Unpublished studies were solicited from researchers.
Study Selection Of 401 citations initially identified, 51 (n = 141 949 participants) met the inclusion criteria: reporting on exposure and tobacco use outcomes and participants younger than 18 years. Included studies reported 146 effects; 89 were conceptually independent effects. Data were extracted independently by 3 of us using a standardized tool. Weighted averages were calculated using a linear mixed-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.
Main Exposures Exposures (tobacco advertising, promotions, and samples and pro-tobacco depictions in films, television, and videos) were categorized as low or high engagement based on the degree of psychological involvement required.
Main Outcome Measures Outcomes were categorized as cognitive (attitudes or intentions) or behavioral (initiation, tobacco use status, or progression of use).
Results Exposure to pro-tobacco marketing and media increases the odds of youth holding positive attitudes toward tobacco use (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.13) and more than doubles the odds of initiating tobacco use (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.77). Highly engaging marketing and media are more effective at promoting use (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-3.25). These effects are observed across time, in different countries, with different study designs and measures of exposure and outcome.
Conclusions Pro-tobacco marketing and media stimulate tobacco use among youth. A ban on all tobacco promotions is warranted to protect children.
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 1.4 million children younger than 18 years in the United States begin smoking cigarettes each year.1 Addiction to tobacco begins quickly, and the earlier a person initiates use the more likely he or she is to develop a severe and persistent addiction.2-4 Therefore, factors that influence children to start using tobacco represent a significant public health risk.
DiFranza et al5 applied the criteria of Hill6 for assessing causality in epidemiologic studies to examine the marketing of tobacco products and children's initiation of tobacco use. Youth exposed to marketing develop positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations about tobacco use, which foster the intention to use, and intention leads to initiation. They concluded that the evidence strongly supported a causal inference. Other reviews7-9 have concluded that children's risk of using tobacco is increased by industry-sponsored tobacco promotion and the depiction of tobacco use in films. This meta-analysis assesses the magnitude of the risk and the stability of the effect across study design characteristics. We use the terms pro-tobacco marketing and media to refer to tobacco advertising, promotions, and samples and to pro-tobacco depictions in films, television, and videos, respectively. A quantified measure of risk will help resolve the tobacco industry–driven controversy about whether their marketing efforts are harmful10-14 and, if the risk is substantial, will provide evidence to policy makers supporting measures to restrict children's exposure.
METHODS
STUDY SELECTION
Following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology standards for reporting meta-analyses,15 we conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2005), PsychINFO (January 1985 to October 2005), Business Source Premier (January 1965 to October 2005), and ABI/INFORM Global (January 1971 to November 2005) to identify studies that assessed a link between any of 5 tobacco use outcomes (attitudes toward use, intention to use, initiation of use, tobacco use status, and progression to heavier use) and tobacco marketing (advertising, promotions, and samples) and media (depictions of tobacco use in films, television, and videos). We searched using Medical Subject Headings and the text key words advertising or tobacco advertising coupled with adolescent or adolescence and smoking or smoking initiation (or related headings appropriate to the database). Separate searches were conducted using the headings/key words motion pictures or television coupled with adolescent or adolescence and smoking or smoking initiation, or appropriate terms. Searches were limited to studies of humans published in English in peer-reviewed journals. We then searched the reference lists of review articles and all potentially relevant articles to identify additional candidates, and we solicited unpublished studies via a posting on the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Listserv and by talking with colleagues.
All potentially relevant articles were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 evaluators (R.J.W. and J.R.D.); in cases of disagreement, a third evaluator (D.B.S.) assessed the study and a consensus was reached.16 To be included, a study had to measure both a tobacco use outcome and exposure to marketing or media. Measures of exposure included asking participants to recognize a brand name or logo, recall a brand, identify a favorite brand, express appreciation of advertisements, report whether they had received a sample of tobacco or had received or would use a tobacco promotional item, or report how many actors they had seen smoking in movies or which movies they had seen. Measures of tobacco use outcome included attitudes toward or expectations about the act of using (rather than attitudes about users), intention to use among youths who had never done so, initiation of use, status as a nonuser or user, and progression to heavier use. We excluded articles without original data and those where the primary focus was on (1) tobacco in the context of disease, (2) adult tobacco use, (3) law or policy, (4) anti-tobacco campaigns, (5) effects of advertising on adult tobacco consumption, (6) comparison of smoking rates across nations without controlling for any factor other than advertising, or (7) marketing practices.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted independently by 3 of us (R.J.W., J.R.D., and D.B.S.) using a standardized tool. In the rare instances when coding did not match, mismatches were resolved by consensus.16 We noted the first author's affiliation (medicine/public health, behavioral sciences, business/marketing, communications, government, or private industry); year of publication; year of data collection (first year for prospective studies); country and sample breadth (national, regional, single state, or local); sampling strategy (representative or convenience); final sample size; age, sex, and ethnicity of the sample; research design (cross-sectional, prospective, or experimental); and the number of effect size estimates (ESs) (which are unadjusted odds ratios [ORs] with accompanying 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).
Before the resolution of mismatches, raters coded categorical study characteristics identically 98.0% of the time on average (range, 93.9%-100%). For continuous variables, the mean correlation was 0.98 (range, 0.95-1.00). Before the resolution of mismatches, the raters coded exposure measures identically 97.3% of the time and outcome measures 97.9% of the time. Because of a high proportion of missing data, several variables (year of data collection, age, sex, and ethnicity) could not be included in analyses of moderator variables.
For each ES we determined the operational definition of the exposure variable and classified it within a conceptual category: awareness (eg, recognition of a brand name or logo, ability to name a brand, or expressed awareness of tobacco promotions), advertising exposure (eg, having seen advertisements or the number of advertisements seen), movie exposure (eg, the number of smoking scenes viewed in movies), appreciation of advertisements (eg, naming a favorite advertisement or rating advertisements as appealing), receipt of a tobacco promotional item or a sample of tobacco, participation in a promotional campaign (eg, willingness to use or actual use of a promotional item), or a scale of receptivity to marketing and media that combined aspects of the other measures. Likewise, we determined the operational definition of the outcome variable and classified it as follows: attitudes toward use, intention to use (typically measured either by a yes answer to a question about intention or by a score on the standardized susceptibility measure of Pierce et al17-18), initiation of use, status as a user or nonuser, or progression of use (ie, heavier use or earlier age at initiation).
In cases in which multiple studies used the same data to investigate conceptually equivalent exposure measures and outcomes, we used the study that most clearly showed the relationship. For example, if one study reported a dichotomous effect19 and a second reported a dose-response relationship,20 we chose the dichotomous effect. In cases in which a single article reported data derived from separate samples (eg, 2 different age groups21 or data collected in different years22) or from separate designs (eg, cross-sectional and longitudinal23), the sets of data were treated as separate studies.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
To avoid overweighting of individual studies, when multiple ESs in a single study addressed the same conceptual categories of exposure and outcome (eg, comparing smokers' and nonsmokers' recognition of 6 brand names and logos, all of which would address awareness24), we averaged the ESs using DSTAT version 1.11.25
The primary analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 2.2.023.26 Exposures and outcomes were treated as dichotomous variables. Weighted averages are reported as ORs and 95% CIs; study weights were assigned by means of inverse variance weighting. The overall ES and ESs for the analyses of moderator variables were calculated using a linear mixed-effects model to account for differences between studies.27-28 The consistency of effects across studies is reported as I2, the percentage of total variance attributable to heterogeneity among studies rather than to chance.29 Values of I2 less than 25% are considered low, those around 50% are moderate, and those greater than 75% indicate high heterogeneity.
We assessed the potential for publication bias in 6 ways. We calculated Begg and Mazumdar rank correlations30 and the regression intercept of Egger et al.31 Because the Egger et al regression test can yield false-positive results when ESs are reported as ORs, we also performed the alternative regression test of Peters et al.32 We calculated fail-safe Ns to determine how many additional null findings would be needed to render the results nonsignificant at  = .05, using the Rosenthal methods,33-34 or to yield a "trivial" OR of 1.05, using the Orwin method.35 Rosenthal suggested that meta-analysts calculate a tolerance level around a fail-safe N equal to 5 times the number of effects included in the meta-analysis (symbolized by k) plus 10 (the "5k + 10" benchmark)34, 36-37; we used this benchmark to assess the observed fail-safe Ns. Finally, to assess whether smaller studies distorted the overall ES we conducted a cumulative meta-analysis, adding studies sequentially from largest to smallest sample size.38
To assess the relationship between design quality and ES, we analyzed differences in ES between 5 subgroups created to represent a continuum of increasing design quality: cross-sectional design/convenience sample, cross-sectional/representative, experimental/convenience, prospective/convenience, and prospective/representative. Ordinarily, an experimental design would be considered strongest for demonstrating causality, but because of ethical considerations, experimental studies in this field are limited to assessments of attitudes. Prospective studies, which can track the change from nonuse to use, were, therefore, ranked highest.
Long ago, the Federal Trade Commission raised concerns that tobacco industry marketing was targeted at young people.39 Similar concerns have been raised about depictions of tobacco use in movies.40 In 1998, the Master Settlement Agreement between the industry and 46 US states banned advertising on billboards and in youth-oriented magazines.41 To determine whether there was a decrease in ESs across time that might be attributed to changes in marketing and media, we conducted a second cumulative meta-analysis in which studies were sorted from oldest to most recent.
RESULTS
STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
The initial search yielded 331 nonduplicated citations addressing marketing and 70 addressing media (Figure 1). After reviewing the abstracts we excluded 317 articles and retained 84 full-text articles for detailed evaluation; review of their reference lists yielded 9 additional published studies, and data from 2 unpublished studies were provided by colleagues. Via e-mail we requested additional data from the authors of 20 studies with insufficient published data. Up to 3 requests were made at monthly intervals; 8 authors met the request, providing data from 10 studies.12, 17, 19, 80-84 Full review of the 95 studies resulted in excluding 44 for the following reasons: unavailable data (n = 10),42-51 no outcome measure (n = 8),52-59 no exposure measure (n = 8),18, 60-66 duplicated another article (n = 6),20, 67-71 no original data (n = 7),8, 10-11,13, 72-74 only time series data from which an ES could not be calculated (n = 2),75-76 included only tobacco users (n = 2),77-78 and studied only antismoking campaigns (n = 1).79 The 51 studies retained for the meta-analysis included 141 949 participants (Table 1) and presented 146 ESs, 89 of which were included in the analysis after averaging those estimates that were conceptually equivalent. Figures 2, 3, and 4 present the ESs and 95% CIs for all the studies, divided by decade of publication.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Study selection, inclusion, and exclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of the Studies and Effects Included in the Meta-analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for studies conducted in the 1980s. The total represents the average OR derived from a mixed-effects model analysis. Lowercase letters after a reference number indicate different effects from the same study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for studies conducted in the 1990s. The total represents the average OR derived from a mixed-effects model analysis. Lowercase letters after a reference number indicate different effects from the same study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for studies conducted in the 2000s. The total represents the average OR derived from a mixed-effects model analysis. Lowercase letters after a reference number indicate different effects from the same study.
|
|
|
QUANTITATIVE DATA SYNTHESIS
The overall ESs from the fixed- and mixed-effects models did not differ (fixed-effects: OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 2.12-2.22; mixed-effects: OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.93-2.47; P<.001 for both), and there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 96.9). Evidence of publication bias was not observed with either the Begg and Mazumdar30 rank correlation (P = .89, 2-tailed) or the Egger et al31 regression intercept (P = .57, 2-tailed), although the Peters et al32 alternative regression method yielded a significant result (slope = –67.34; P<.001). The Rosenthal fail-safe N indicated that 86 514 additional null effects would be needed to render the overall ES nonsignificant at P = .05; the Orwin fail-safe N indicated that 1324 null effects would be needed to yield an OR of 1.05 or less. Both fail-safe Ns greatly exceed the 455 ESs representing the 5k +10 threshold. Together, these tests suggest little likelihood of publication bias and, given the strength of the effect, little likelihood that the exclusion of studies with negative results (due to a file drawer effect34 or unavailability of data) could have led to this outcome. The cumulative meta-analysis revealed no shift in ES as smaller studies were included. The ES after addition of the 2 largest studies,92, 103 which accounted for 6 ESs, was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.28-2.88), and the ES after all the studies were included was 2.19. Because the overall ES is well within the 95% CI for that of the largest studies, there is no evidence of a "small study effect."38 There was no correlation between sample size and ES (slope = 0.00; P = .29).
We next examined the effects of design quality and sampling breadth (Table 2). Overall, quality of design was unrelated to ES. In the initial analysis, studies with national samples tended to yield lower ESs than those with regional, state, or local samples (P = .06). However, 2 ESs from 1 study86 were significantly different from the other ESs in that study and from those derived from the other 5 studies with national samples.22, 98, 102, 112 When the 2 outlying ESs were removed from the analysis there was no difference among studies on the basis of sampling breadth (P = .67).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Relationship Between ES and Design Quality and Sampling Breadth
|
|
|
A preliminary analysis revealed that 56 of the 89 ESs had tobacco use status (nonuser vs user) as the outcome variable, followed by initiation of use (n = 13), intention to use (n = 10), progression to heavier use (n = 5), and attitudes toward use (n = 5). Among exposure measures, advertising exposure (n = 17) and awareness of marketing (n = 17) were most frequently represented, followed by use of a promotional item (n = 14), approval of advertising (n = 14), movie exposure (n = 10), receptivity (n = 9), receipt of a promotional item (n = 6), and receipt of a tobacco sample (n = 2). The small number of ESs in each subclassification precluded a fine-grained analysis. Consequently, we classified exposure measures by the degree of psychological involvement required: low engagement (awareness of marketing, advertising exposure, movie exposure, and receipt of a promotional item or tobacco sample) or high engagement (appreciation of advertising, willingness to use a promotional item, and receptivity). We classified outcome measures as either cognitive (attitudes toward use and intention to use) or behavioral (initiation of use, status, and progression). Overall, high-engagement exposures produced higher ESs than did low-engagement exposures, and ESs for behavioral outcomes were greater than those for cognitive outcomes (Table 3). The ES for progression to heavier use (OR, 1.42) was significantly lower than those for initiation of use (OR, 2.23) and tobacco use status (OR, 2.46).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Relationship Between ES and Exposure Type and Outcome Type
|
|
|
The classification scheme gave us 4 possible combinations of exposure and outcome (see Table 1 for the classification of each ES). The overall ES for studies using a cognitive outcome was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.08-2.13; P = .02); the ES for low-engagement exposure was smaller than for high-engagement exposure with a cognitive outcome (Table 4). Because of the small number of included studies, we assessed the potential for publication bias in studies with a cognitive outcome. The Rosenthal fail-safe N indicated that 340 null effects would be needed to render the ES nonsignificant at P<.05. The Orwin fail-safe N indicated that 179 null effects would be necessary to yield a trivial OR of 1.05. These fail-safe Ns greatly exceed the 5k +10 threshold of 85 null effects. Given that the ratio of excluded null effects to included effects is greater than 5:1, there is little likelihood that the exclusion of studies led to the observed outcome. The overall ES for studies using a behavioral outcome was 2.33 (95% CI, 2.03-2.67; P<.001); low- and high-engagement exposures with behavioral outcomes produced equivalent ESs (Table 4).
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Subgroup Analysis (Exposure Type by Outcome Type)
|
|
|
The cumulative meta-analysis by publication date did not reveal a trend toward decreasing ESs across time. There was no overall difference in ESs derived from studies conducted between 1981 and 1990 (8 studies and 12 ESs), 1991 and 2000 (26 studies and 37 ESs), or 2001 and 2005 (21 studies and 40 ESs) (P = .15). However, studies conducted since 2001 tended to yield larger ESs (overall ES, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.05-2.95) than did those conducted in the 1990s (overall ES, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.52-2.35; P = .07).
COMMENT
DiFranza et al5 concluded that exposure to marketing causes children to initiate tobacco use. We quantified this risk; the odds of becoming a tobacco user are more than doubled by exposure to marketing and media. This relationship is robust, with similar effects observed across time in different countries, in cross-sectional and prospective designs using a variety of measures of exposure, and whether the outcome is initiation or tobacco use status.
Exposure that does not actively engage the recipient has a substantial impact, increasing the odds of tobacco use by approximately 90%. This suggests that youth are highly susceptible to the pervasive presence of marketing and media. Once a recipient is psychologically involved, the odds increase almost 3-fold, suggesting that the interaction between exposure and an individual's psychological processes is powerful. The impact of marketing and media remains powerful even after the initiation of use; exposure increased the odds of progression to heavier use by 42%.
A variety of psychosocial factors (eg, age, ethnicity, family structure, parental socioeconomic status, personal income, parental attitudes and tobacco use, sibling and peer tobacco use, peer attitudes and norms, family environment, engagement in other risky behaviors, stress, depression, and self-esteem) raise the odds of initiation.122-124 The appearance of symptoms of addiction seems to be the primary factor driving progression to heavier use.125 Thus, it is not surprising that marketing and media have a greater impact on initiation of use than on progression to heavier use.
Compared with unexposed youth, exposed youth had approximately 50% greater odds of holding positive attitudes toward tobacco use or expressing an intention to use in the future and more than twice the odds of initiating use. For years the tobacco industry has claimed that a cross-sectional association between exposure to marketing and tobacco use is found because users are more likely than nonusers to attend to marketing.13 If use causes exposure rather than vice versa, ESs in cross-sectional studies should exceed those in prospective studies of nonusers, in which assessment of exposure precedes the onset of use. The present findings refute the industry's argument; the ESs in prospective studies are equivalent to those in cross-sectional studies.
If attempts to mitigate the harm posed by marketing and media, embodied in voluntary and mandatory restrictions instituted during the past 2 decades, were effective, we would expect to observe a decrease in ESs across time. We did not. Indeed, the ES shows a trend toward increasing since 2001, suggesting that the risk to youth has increased. These measures have not had an evident effect on exposure. The tobacco industry has been remarkably adept at shifting strategies to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Master Settlement Agreement by preferentially placing their advertisements in magazines whose youth readership exceeds 20%,126-127 and tobacco use in current movies is comparable with that seen in the 1950s, when it was rampant.128
The strengths of this meta-analysis include the large number of ESs available for analysis, lack of evidence for publication bias, large overall sample size, the time during which data were collected, and diversity among studies in design, geographic distribution, and exposure and outcome measures. Potential limitations include the inability to assess possible moderation by demographic or psychosocial factors because of a lack of data or to conduct a fine-grained analysis of the interaction between exposure and outcome measures because of a paucity of studies in particular categories.
Despite the industry-fueled controversy surrounding the relationship between exposure to pro-tobacco marketing and media and initiation of use,10-14 the present findings offer considerable evidence for a causal link. First, the overall ES is strong and robust, showing consistency between cross-sectional and prospective studies. Second, the 3 experimental studies reviewed demonstrated that greater exposure led to more positive attitudes toward use. Third, the failure of design-related moderator variables to impact the ES suggests that such alternative explanations are limited. Most important, in 13 prospective studies, exposure more than doubled the odds of initiating tobacco use.
Ethical considerations preclude experimental studies that would expose youth to marketing and media to see whether they would initiate tobacco use. However, laboratory and field-based experiments have shown that media portrayals of violence in films (low engagement) and video games (high engagement) produce subsequent violent attitudes and behaviors in children and adolescents.129-130 The causal relationship between violent media and behavior makes it plausible that tobacco marketing and media also affect behavior.
Given the money spent by the tobacco industry on worldwide marketing and the global distribution of American movies, it is unlikely that many children escape exposure. Our findings suggest that half of all children who initiate tobacco use do so because of exposure to marketing and media. Half the youth who initiate smoking will likely continue for more than 15 years,3 making themselves vulnerable to serious harm. Smoking causes 36 diseases,131 which kill almost half of all smokers.132 Current and future schemes that expose children to pro-tobacco messages, products, or images are a public health menace. More definitive measures to curtail exposure, such as a ban on all tobacco promotional activities, as called for in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,133 are needed and warranted.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Robert J. Wellman, PhD, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655 (Robert.Wellman{at}umassmed.edu).
Accepted for Publication: June 27, 2006.
Author Contributions: Dr Wellman had full access to all the data presented in this study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Wellman, Sugarman, and DiFranza. Acquisition of data: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Analysis and interpretation of data: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Drafting of the manuscript: Wellman, Sugarman, and DiFranza. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Statistical analysis: Wellman and Sugarman. Obtained funding: Wellman and DiFranza. Administrative, technical, and material support: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Study supervision: Wellman and Winickoff.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 53081 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Dr Wellman).
Role of the Sponsor: The funding agency played no role in designing or conducting the study; in collecting, managing, analyzing, or interpreting the data; or in preparing, reviewing, or approving the manuscript.
Disclaimer: The ideas expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding agency.
Acknowledgment: We thank Bethany J. Hipple, MPH (Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital), for assistance in searching the business literature and for reviewing the first draft of the manuscript and William Shadel, PhD (Rand Corp) for reviewing the first draft.
Author Affiliations: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Drs Wellman and DiFranza); Department of Behavioral Sciences, Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, Mass (Dr Wellman); Department of Psychology, Rhode Island College, Providence (Dr Sugarman); and Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Dr Winickoff).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Overview of findings from the 2004 national survey on drug use and health. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k4NSDUH/2k4Overview/2k4Overview.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2005.
2. DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Rigotti NA, et al. Development of symptoms of tobacco dependence in youths: 30 month follow up data from the DANDY study. Tob Control. 2002;11:228-235.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Pierce JP, Gilpin E. How long will today's new adolescent smoker be addicted to cigarettes? Am J Public Health. 1996;86:253-256.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Chen J, Millar WJ. Age of smoking initiation: implications for quitting. Health Rep. 1998;9:39-46.
PUBMED
5. DiFranza JR, Wellman RJ, Sargent JD, Weitzman M, Hipple BJ, Winickoff JP. Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e1237-e1248.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
7. Charlesworth A, Glantz SA. Smoking in the movies increases adolescent smoking: a review. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1516-1528.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Lovato C, Linn G, Stead LF, Best A. Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD003439.
PUBMED
9. Sargent JD. Smoking in movies: impact on adolescent smoking. Adolesc Med Clin. 2005;16:345-370.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
10. Boddewyn JJ. Cigarette advertising bans and smoking: the flawed policy connection. Int J Advertising. 1994;13:311-332.
11. Jenkins J. Tobacco advertising and children: some Canadian findings. Int J Advertising. 1988;7:357-367.
12. Mizerski R. The relationship between cartoon trade character recognition and attitude toward product category in young children. J Mark. 1995;59:58-70.
13. Moschis GP. Cigarette advertising and young smokers. J Advertising Res. 1989;April/May:51-60.14. Sullum J. Unclear link between cigarette ads and adolescent smoking. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:280-281.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al, Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing and presenting results. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm. Accessed March 30, 2006.17. Evans N, Farkas A, Gilpin E, Berry C, Pierce JP. Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent susceptibility to smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1538-1545.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Pierce JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, Farkas AJ, Merritt RK. Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States. Health Psychol. 1996;15:355-361.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
19. Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach M, Bernhardt A, Pullin D, Stevens M. Cigarette promotional items in public schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:1189-1196.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Sargent JD, Dalton M, Beach M. Exposure to cigarette promotions and smoking uptake in adolescents: evidence of a dose-response relation. Tob Control. 2000;9:163-168.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Charlton A. Children's advertisement awareness related to their views on smoking. Health Educ J. 1986;45:75-78.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Braverman MT, Aaro LE. Adolescent smoking and exposure to tobacco marketing under a tobacco advertising ban: findings from 2 Norwegian national samples. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1230-1238.
FREE FULL TEXT
23. Charlton A, Blair V. Predicting the onset of smoking in boys and girls. Soc Sci Med. 1989;29:813-818.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
24. Aitken PP, Leathar DS, O'Hagan FJ, Squair SI. Children's awareness of cigarette advertisements and brand imagery. Br J Addict. 1987;82:615-622.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
25. DSTAT Software for the Meta-analytic Review of Research Literature. Version 1.11. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1995.26. Comprehensive Meta-analysis. A Computer Program for Research Synthesis: Version 2.2.023. Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2005.27. Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:354-379.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
28. Stram DO. Meta-analysis of published data using a linear mixed-effects model. Biometrics. 1996;52:536-544.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
29. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.
FREE FULL TEXT
30. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088-1101.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
31. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-634.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295:676-680.
FREE FULL TEXT
33. Rosenthal R. Combining results of independent studies. Psychol Bull. 1978;85:185-193.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
34. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:638-641.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
35. Orwin RG. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. J Educ Stat. 1983;8:157-159.
FULL TEXT
36. Mullen B, Muellerleile P, Bryant B. Cumulative meta-analysis: a consideration of indicators of sufficiency and stability. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27:1450-1462.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Muellerleile P, Mullen B. Sufficiency and stability of evidence for public health interventions using cumulative meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:515-522.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Borenstein M. Software for publication bias. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005:193-220.39. Report to Congress Pursuant to the Cigarette Smoking Act 1978: An Action Oriented Research Program for Discovering and Creating the Best Possible Image for Viceroy Cigarettes, Ted Bates Advertising, 1975. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 1975. Document AD11345.40. Tye JB. Cigarette ads in kids' movies. Tob Youth Rep. 1989;4:1-2.
41. National Association of Attorneys General. Master Settlement Agreement. Washington, DC: National Association of Attorneys General; 1998.42. Aitken PP, Eadie DR, Hastings GB, Haywood AJ. Predisposing effects of cigarette advertising on children's intentions to smoke when older. Br J Addict. 1991;86:383-390.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
43. Armstrong BK, de Klerk NH, Shean RE, Dunn DA, Dolin PJ. Influence of education and advertising on the uptake of smoking by children. Med J Aust. 1990;152:117-124.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
44. Arnett JJ. Adolescents' responses to cigarette advertisements for five "youth brands" and one "adult brand." J Res Adolesc. 2001;11:425-443.
WEB OF SCIENCE
45. Borzekowski DL, Flora JA, Feighery E, Schooler C. The perceived influence of cigarette advertisements and smoking susceptibility among seventh graders. J Health Commun. 1999;4:105-118.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
46. Goldberg ME. American media and the smoking-related behaviors of Asian adolescents. J Advertising Res. 2003;43:2-11.
47. Hawkins K, Hane AC. Adolescents' perceptions of print cigarette advertising: a case for counteradvertising. J Health Commun. 2000;5:83-96.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
48. Kaufman NJ, Castrucci BC, Mowery PD, Gerlach KK, Emont S, Orleans CT. Predictors of change on the smoking uptake continuum among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:581-587.
FREE FULL TEXT
49. Klitzner M, Gruenewald PJ, Bamberger E. Cigarette advertising and adolescent experimentation with smoking. Br J Addict. 1991;86:287-298.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
50. Straub DM, Hills NK, Thompson PJ, Moscicki AB. Effects of pro- and anti-tobacco advertising on nonsmoking adolescents' intentions to smoke. J Adolesc Health. 2003;32:36-43.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
51. Unger JB, Johnson CA, Rohrbach LA. Recognition and liking of tobacco and alcohol advertisements among adolescents: relationships with susceptibility to substance use. Prev Med. 1995;24:461-466.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
52. Aitken PP, Leathar DS, Squair SI. Children's awareness of cigarette brand sponsorship of sports and games in the UK. Health Educ Res. 1986;1:203-211.
FREE FULL TEXT
53. Donovan RJ, Jancey J, Jones S. Tobacco point of sale advertising increases positive brand user imagery. Tob Control. 2002;11:191-194.
FREE FULL TEXT
54. Fischer PM, Schwartz MP, Richards JW, et al. Brand logo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years. JAMA. 1991;266:3145-3148.
FREE FULL TEXT
55. McCool JP, Cameron LD, Petrie KJ. Adolescent perceptions of smoking imagery in film. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:1577-1587.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
56. Pechmann C, Ratneshwar S. The effects of antismoking and cigarette advertising on young adolescents' perceptions of peers who smoke. J Consum Res. 1994;21:236-251.
FULL TEXT
57. Shadel WG, Niaura R, Abrams DB. Who am I? the role of self-conflict in adolescents' responses to cigarette advertising. J Behav Med. 2004;27:463-475.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
58. Shadel WG, Niaura R, Abrams DB. Adolescents' responses to the gender valence of cigarette advertising imagery: the role of affect and the self-concept. Addict Behav. 2004;29:1735-1744.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
59. Sun D, Anderson M, Shah A, Julliard K. Early adolescents' perceptions of cigarette smoking: a cross-sectional survey in a junior high school. Adolescence. 1998;33:805-810.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
60. Charlton A. Children's opinions about smoking. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1984;34:483-487.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
61. Distefan JM, Gilpin EA, Sargent JD, Pierce JP. Do movie stars encourage adolescents to start smoking? evidence from California. Prev Med. 1999;28:1-11.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
62. Gidwani PP, Sobol A, DeJong W, Perrin JM, Gortmaker SL. Television viewing and initiation of smoking among youth. Pediatrics. 2002;110:505-508.
FREE FULL TEXT
63. Goldberg ME, Baumgartner H. Cross-country attraction as a motivation for product consumption. J Bus Res. 2002;55:901-906.
FULL TEXT
64. Hunter SM, Croft JB, Burke GL, Parker FC, Webber LS, Berenson GS. Longitudinal patterns of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use in youth: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Public Health. 1986;76:193-195.
FREE FULL TEXT
65. Unger JB, Johnson CA, Stoddard JL, Nezami E, Chou CP. Identification of adolescents at risk for smoking initiation: validation of a measure of susceptibility. Addict Behav. 1997;22:81-91.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
66. Vaidya SG, Vaidya JS, Naik UD. Sports sponsorship by cigarette companies influences the adolescent children's mind and helps initiate smoking: results of a national study in India. J Indian Med Assoc. 1999;97:354-356, 359.
PUBMED
67. Albers AB, Biener L. Adolescent participation in tobacco promotions: the role of psychosocial factors. Pediatrics. 2003;111:402-406.
FREE FULL TEXT
68. Biener L, Siegel M. The role of tobacco advertising and promotion in smoking initiation. In: National Cancer Institute, ed. Changing Adolescent Smoking Prevalence. Bethesda, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2001. NIH publication 02-5086.69. Feighery E, Borzekowski DL, Schooler C, Flora J. Seeing, wanting, owning: the relationship between receptivity to tobacco marketing and smoking susceptibility in young people. Tob Control. 1998;7:123-128.
FREE FULL TEXT
70. Gilpin EA, Pierce JP, Rosbrook B. Are adolescents receptive to current sales promotion practices of the tobacco industry? Prev Med. 1997;26:14-21.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
71. Pierce JP, Distefan JM, Jackson C, White MM, Gilpin EA. Does tobacco marketing undermine the influence of recommended parenting in discouraging adolescents from smoking? Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:73-81.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
72. Hastings GB, Ryan H, Teer P, MacKintosh AM. Cigarette advertising and children's smoking: why Reg was withdrawn. BMJ. 1994;309:933-937.
FREE FULL TEXT
73. Wakefield M, Flay B, Nichter M, Giovino G. Role of the media in influencing trajectories of youth smoking. Addiction. 2003;98(suppl 1):79-103.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
74. Young EC, Moschis GP. Review of Eye Tracking and Recall Study of Adolescents Viewing Tobacco Advertisements. Fort Lee, NJ: Perception Research Services, American Tobacco Document Collection; January 5, 1989. Bates No. 980108834/8845.75. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. A historical analysis of tobacco marketing and the uptake of smoking by youth in the United States: 1890-1977. Health Psychol. 1995;14:500-508.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
76. Pierce JP, Lee L, Gilpin EA. Smoking initiation by adolescent girls, 1944 through 1988: an association with targeted advertising. JAMA. 1994;271:608-611.
FREE FULL TEXT
77. Wakefield MA, Ruel EE, Chaloupka FJ, Slater SJ, Kaufman NJ. Association of point-of-purchase tobacco advertising and promotions with choice of usual brand among teenage smokers. J Health Commun. 2002;7:113-121.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
78. Pucci LG, Siegel M. Exposure to brand-specific cigarette advertising in magazines and its impact on youth smoking. Prev Med. 1999;29:313-320.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
79. Andrews J, Netemeyer RG, Burton S, Moberg D, Christiansen A. Understanding adolescent intentions to smoke: an examination of relationships among social influence, prior trial behavior, and antitobacco campaign advertising. J Mark. 2004;68:110-123.
FULL TEXT
80. Choi WS, Farkas AJ, Rosbrook B, Elder JP, Pierce JP. Does advertising promote smokeless tobacco use among adolescent boys? evidence from California. Tob Control. 1995;4(suppl 1):S57-S63.
FULL TEXT
81. Audrain-McGovern J, Rodriguez D, Tercyak KP, Cuevas J, Rodgers K, Patterson F. Identifying and characterizing adolescent smoking trajectories. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:2023-2034.
FREE FULL TEXT
82. Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Wang Y, Fortmann SP. Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:2081-2083.
FREE FULL TEXT
83. Lopez ML, Herrero P, Comas A, et al. Impact of cigarette advertising on smoking behaviour in Spanish adolescents as measured using recognition of billboard advertising. Eur J Public Health. 2004;14:428-432.
FREE FULL TEXT
84. Santana Y, Gonzalez B, Pinilla J, Calvo JR, Barber P. Young adolescents, tobacco advertising, and smoking. J Drug Educ. 2003;33:427-444.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
85. Alexander HM, Callcott R, Dobson AJ, et al. Cigarette smoking and drug use in schoolchildren, IV: factors associated with changes in smoking behaviour. Int J Epidemiol. 1983;12:59-66.
FREE FULL TEXT
86. Altman DG, Levine DW, Coeytaux R, Slade J, Jaffe R. Tobacco promotion and susceptibility to tobacco use among adolescents aged 12 through 17 years in a nationally representative sample. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1590-1593.
FREE FULL TEXT
87. Arnett JJ, Terhanian G. Adolescents' responses to cigarette advertisements: links between exposure, liking, and the appeal of smoking. Tob Control. 1998;7:129-133.
FREE FULL TEXT
88. Biener L, Siegel M. Tobacco marketing and adolescent smoking: more support for a causal inference. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:407-411.
FREE FULL TEXT
89. Botvin GJ, Goldberg CJ, Botvin EM, Dusenbury L. Smoking behavior of adolescents exposed to cigarette advertising. Public Health Rep. 1993;108:217-224.
WEB OF SCIENCE
90. Chapman S, Fitzgerald B. Brand preference and advertising recall in adolescent smokers: some implications for health promotion. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:491-494.
FREE FULL TEXT
91. Charlton A, While D, Kelly S. Boys' smoking and cigarette-brand-sponsored motor racing [letter]. Lancet. 1997;350:1474.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
92. Chen X, Cruz TB, Schuster DV, Unger JB, Johnson CA. Receptivity to pro-tobacco media and its impact on cigarette smoking among ethnic minority youth in California. J Health Commun. 2002;7:95-111.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
93. Choi WS, Ahluwalia JS, Harris KJ, Okuyemi K. Progression to established smoking: the influence of tobacco marketing. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:228-233.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
94. Dalton MA, Sargent JD, Beach ML, et al. Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study. Lancet. 2003;362:281-285.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
95. DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, et al. RJR Nabisco's cartoon camel promotes Camel cigarettes to children. JAMA. 1991;266:3149-3153. [published correction appears in JAMA. 1992;268:2034].
FREE FULL TEXT
96. Emri S, Bagci T, Karakoca Y, Baris E. Recognition of cigarette brand names and logos by primary schoolchildren in Ankara, Turkey. Tob Control. 1998;7:386-392.
FREE FULL TEXT
97. Goldstein AO, Fischer PM, Richards JW Jr, Creten D. Relationship between high school student smoking and recognition of cigarette advertisements. J Pediatr. 1987;110:488-491.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
98. Health Education Authority. An Investigation of the Appeal and Impact of the Embassy Regal "Reg" Campaign on Young People. London, England: Health Education Authority; 1993.99. Henke LL. Young children's perceptions of cigarette brand advertising symbols: awareness, affect, and target market identification. J Advertising. 1995;4:13-28.
100. Klein JD, Forehand B, Oliveri J, Patterson CJ, Kupersmidt JB, Strecher V. Candy cigarettes: do they encourage children's smoking? Pediatrics. 1992;89:27-31.
FREE FULL TEXT
101. Lam TH, Chung SF, Betson CL, Wong CM, Hedley AJ. Tobacco advertisements: one of the strongest risk factors for smoking in Hong Kong students. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:217-223.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
102. Maassen IT, Kremers SP, Mudde AN, Joof BM. Smoking initiation among Gambian adolescents: social cognitive influences and the effect of cigarette sampling. Health Educ Res. 2004;19:551-560.
FREE FULL TEXT
103. Unger JB, Chen X. The role of social networks and media receptivity in predicting age of smoking initiation: a proportional hazards model of risk and protective factors. Addict Behav. 1999;24:371-381.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
104. Pechmann C, Shih C-F. Smoking scenes in movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: effects on youth. J Mark. 1999;63:1-13.
105. Peters J, Betson CL, Hedley AJ, et al. Recognition of cigarette brand names and logos by young children in Hong Kong. Tob Control. 1995;4:150-155.
106. Pierce JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, Farkas AJ, Berry CC. Tobacco industry promotion of cigarettes and adolescent smoking. JAMA. 1998;279:511-515.
FREE FULL TEXT
107. Sargent JD, Dalton M, Beach M, Bernhardt A, Heatherton T, Stevens M. Effect of cigarette promotions on smoking uptake among adolescents. Prev Med. 2000;30:320-327.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
108. Schooler C, Feighery E, Flora JA. Seventh graders' self-reported exposure to cigarette marketing and its relationship to their smoking behavior. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1216-1221.
FREE FULL TEXT
109. Turco RM. Effects of exposure to cigarette advertisements on adolescents' attitudes toward smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27:1115-1130.
FULL TEXT
110. Vaidya SG, Naik UD, Vaidya JS. Effect of sports sponsorship by tobacco companies on children's experimentation with tobacco. BMJ. 1996;313:400.
FREE FULL TEXT
111. While D, Kelly S, Huang W, Charlton A. Cigarette advertising and onset of smoking in children: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1996;313:398-399.
FREE FULL TEXT
112. Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, et al. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1183-1191.
FREE FULL TEXT
113. MacFadyen L, Hastings G, MacKintosh AM. Cross sectional study of young people's awareness of and involvement with tobacco marketing. BMJ. 2001;322:513-517.
FREE FULL TEXT
114. Maziak W, Rzehak P, Keil U, Weiland SK. Smoking among adolescents in Muenster, Germany: increase in prevalence (1995-2000) and relation to tobacco advertising. Prev Med. 2003;36:172-176.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
115. Otake K, Shimai S. Relationship between stages of smoking acquisition and environmental factors among junior high school students. Psychol Rep. 2002;90:257-261.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
116. Pechmann C, Knight SJ. An experimental investigation of the joint effects of advertising and peers on adolescents' beliefs and intentions about cigarette consumption. J Consum Res. 2002;29:5-19.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
117. Pierce JP, Distefan JM, Kaplan RM, Gilpin EA. The role of curiosity in smoking initiation. Addict Behav. 2005;30:685-696.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
118. Sargent JD, Beach ML, Dalton MA, et al. Effect of seeing tobacco use in films on trying smoking among adolescents: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2001;323:1394-1397.
FREE FULL TEXT
119. Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML, et al. Viewing tobacco use in movies: does it shape attitudes that mediate adolescent smoking? Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:137-145.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
120. Tickle JJ, Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML, Heatherton TF. Favourite movie stars, their tobacco use in contemporary movies, and its association with adolescent smoking. Tob Control. 2001;10:16-22.
FREE FULL TEXT
121. Unger JB, Cruz TB, Schuster D, Flora JA, Johnson CA. Measuring exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco marketing among adolescents: intercorrelations among measures and associations with smoking status. J Health Commun. 2001;6:11-29.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
122. Conrad KM, Flay BR, Hill D. Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. Br J Addict. 1992;87:1711-1724.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
123. de Vries H, Engels R, Kremers S, Wetzels J, Mudde A. Parents' and friends' smoking status as predictors of smoking onset: findings from six European countries. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:627-636.
FREE FULL TEXT
124. Tyas SL, Pederson LL. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tob Control. 1998;7:409-420.
FREE FULL TEXT
125. Wellman RJ, DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Dussault GF. Short term patterns of early smoking acquisition. Tob Control. 2004;13:251-257.
FREE FULL TEXT
126. Chung PJ, Garfield CF, Rathouz PJ, Lauderdale DB, Lantos J. Youth targeting by tobacco manufacturers since the Master Settlement Agreement: the first study to document violations of the youth-targeting ban in magazine ads by the three top U.S. tobacco companies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;21:254-263.
127. Hamilton WL, Turner-Bowker DM, Celebucki CC, Connolly GN. Cigarette advertising in magazines: the tobacco industry's response to the Master Settlement Agreement and to public pressure. Tob Control. 2002;11(suppl 2):ii54-ii58.
FREE FULL TEXT
128. Glantz SA, Kacirk KW, McCulloch C. Back to the future: smoking in movies in 2002 compared with 1950 levels. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:261-263.
FREE FULL TEXT
129. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:353-359.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
130. Paik H, Comstock G. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis. Communication Res. 1994;21:516-546.
131. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health; 2004. DHHS publication 0-16-051576-2.132. Burns DM, Garfinkel G, Samet JM. Introduction, summary and conclusions. In: Changes in Cigarette-Related Disease Risks and Their Implication for Prevention and Control: Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 8. Bethesda, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1997. NIH publication 97-4213.133. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (World Health Assembly resolution 56.1). http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/final_text/en/index5.html. Accessed June 1, 2006.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Establishing the Predictive Validity of Intentions to Smoke Among Preadolescents and Adolescents Surviving Cancer
Klosky et al.
JCO 2010;28:431-436.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tobacco Industry Consumer Research on Smokeless Tobacco Users and Product Development
Mejia and Ling
AJPH 2010;100:78-87.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tobacco Use: A Pediatric Disease
Committee on Environmental Health, Committee on Su
Pediatrics 2009;124:1474-1487.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tobacco as a Substance of Abuse
Sims and the Committee on Substance Abuse
Pediatrics 2009;124:e1045-e1053.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Exposure to Tobacco on the Internet: Content Analysis of Adolescents' Internet Use
Jenssen et al.
Pediatrics 2009;124:e180-e186.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Early Exposure to Movie Smoking Predicts Established Smoking by Older Teens and Young Adults
Dalton et al.
Pediatrics 2009;123:e551-e558.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparing the effects of entertainment media and tobacco marketing on youth smoking
Sargent et al.
Tobacco Control 2009;18:47-53.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Exposure to Cigarette Advertising and Adolescents' Intentions to Smoke: The Moderating Role of the Developing Self-Concept
Shadel et al.
J Pediatr Psychol 2008;33:751-760.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Perceived Accessibility as a Predictor of Youth Smoking
Doubeni et al.
Ann Fam Med 2008;6:323-330.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Long-Term Trends in Adolescent and Young Adult Smoking in the United States: Metapatterns and Implications
Nelson et al.
AJPH 2008;98:905-915.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of a Pediatric Practice-Based Smoking Prevention and Cessation Intervention for Adolescents: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Pbert et al.
Pediatrics 2008;121:e738-e747.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Longitudinal Study of Viewing Smoking in Movies and Initiation of Smoking by Children
Titus-Ernstoff et al.
Pediatrics 2008;121:15-21.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Exposure to Smoking in Internationally Distributed American Movies and Youth Smoking in Germany: A Cross-cultural Cohort Study
Hanewinkel and Sargent
Pediatrics 2008;121:e108-e117.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Susceptibility to Nicotine Dependence: The Development and Assessment of Nicotine Dependence in Youth 2 Study
DiFranza et al.
Pediatrics 2007;120:e974-e983.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
