4.1 Article

Advertising Receptivity and Youth Initiation of Smokeless Tobacco

Journal

SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
Volume 51, Issue 9, Pages 1077-1082

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2016.1160115

Keywords

Smokeless tobacco; adolescence; marketing; advertising receptivity; tobacco industry

Funding

  1. National Institute of Drug Abuse
  2. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [R03DA027950]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cross-sectional data suggests that adolescents' receptivity to the advertising of smokeless tobacco is correlatedwith use of chewing tobacco or snuff. Lack of longitudinal data has precluded determination of whether advertising receptivity precedes or follows initiation of smokeless tobacco. Objectives: The objective of this study was to test for the association between advertising receptivity and subsequent initiation of smokeless tobacco among adolescent males. Methods: Adolescent males from the 1993-1999 Teen Longitudinal California Tobacco Survey were selected at the baseline survey for never having used smokeless tobacco. Separate longitudinal analyses corresponded to two dependent variables, ever use of smokeless tobacco (1993-1996; N = 1,388) and use on 20 or more occasions (1993-1999; N = 1,014). Modelswere adjusted for demographic variables, risk factors for smokeless tobacco use, and exposure to users of smokeless tobacco. Results: Advertising receptivity at baseline was predictive of ever use by late adolescence (RR(95% CI) = 2.0 (1.5, 2.8)) and regular use by young adulthood (RR(95% CI) = 3.7 (2.1, 6.7)) in models that were adjusted for covariates. Conclusions/Importance: The findings challenge the tobacco industry's assertion that tobacco marketing does not impact youth initiation. This is particularly relevant to tobacco control in the United States because the 2009 Tobacco Control Act places fewer restrictions on smokeless tobacco products compared to cigarettes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available