Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28574573›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people.

Kristin V Carson, Faisal Ameer, Kourosh Sayehmiri, Khin Hnin, Joseph Em van Agteren, Fatemeh Sayehmiri, Malcolm P Brinn, Adrian J Esterman, Anne B Chang, Brian J Smith

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Effect of Tobacco Control Mass Media Campaigns on Smoking-Related Behavior Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Literature Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mobile Health Interventions for Adolescent Smoking Prevention: A Scoping Review.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Examining the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Tobacco-Related Social Media Data: Scoping Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Examining indirect effects of advertising exposure on young adults' cannabis and nicotine vaping.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kristin V CarsonSchool of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Faisal Ameer
Kourosh Sayehmiri
Khin Hnin
Joseph Em van Agteren
Fatemeh Sayehmiri
Malcolm P Brinn
Adrian J Esterman
Anne B Chang
Brian J Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass media interventions can be used as a way of delivering preventive health messages. They have the potential to reach and modify the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of a large proportion of the community.

objectivesTo assess the effects of mass media interventions on preventing smoking in young people, and whether it can reduce smoking uptake among youth (under 25 years), improve smoking attitudes, intentions and knowledge, improve self-efficacy/self-esteem, and improve perceptions about smoking, including the choice to follow positive role models. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE and Embase in June 2016. This is an update of a review first published in 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, controlled trials without randomization and interrupted time-series studies that assessed the effect of mass media campaigns (defined as channels of communication such as television, radio, newspapers, social media, billboards, posters, leaflets or booklets intended to reach large numbers of people and which are not dependent on person-to-person contact) in influencing the smoking behaviour (either objective or self-reported) of young people under the age of 25 years. We define smoking behaviour as the presence or absence of tobacco smoking or other tobacco use, or both, and the frequency of tobacco use. Eligible comparators included education or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted information relating to the characteristics and the content of media interventions, participants, outcomes, methods of the study and risks of bias. We combined studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. We assessed the risks of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, alongside additional domains to account for the nature of the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to outcomes using GRADE. MAIN

resultsWe identified eight eligible studies reporting information about mass media smoking campaigns, one of which is new for this update. Seven of the studies used a controlled trial design and one an interrupted time-series analysis. Risks of bias were high across all included studies and there was considerable heterogeneity in study design, intervention and population being assessed.Three studies (n = 17,385), one of which compared a mass media intervention to no intervention and two of which evaluated mass media interventions as adjuncts to school-based interventions, found that the mass media interventions reduced the smoking behaviour of young people. The remaining five studies (n = 72,740) did not detect a significant effect on smoking behaviour. These included three studies comparing a mass media intervention to no intervention, one study evaluating a mass media intervention as an adjunct to a school-based intervention, and one interrupted time-series study of a social media intervention. The three campaigns which found a significant effect described their theoretical basis, used formative research in designing the campaign messages, and used message broadcast of reasonable intensity over extensive periods of time. However, some of the campaigns which did not detect an effect also exhibited these characteristics. Effective campaigns tended to last longer (minimum 3 years) and were more intense (more contact time) for both school-based lessons (minimum eight lessons per grade) and media spots (minimum four weeks' duration across multiple media channels with between 167 and 350 TV and radio spots). Implementation of combined school-based components (e.g. school posters) and the use of repetitive media messages delivered by multiple channels (e.g. newspapers, radio, television) appeared to contribute to successful campaigns. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCertainty about the effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behaviour in youth is very low, due to inconsistency between studies in both design and results, and due to methodological issues amongst the included studies. It would therefore be unwise to offer firm conclusions based on the evidence in this review. Methodologically rigorous studies investigating the effect of social media and novel forms of technology as part of tobacco prevention campaigns for youth are needed.

Indexed as

Health EducationMass MediaSmoking PreventionAdolescentAge FactorsCase-Control StudiesHealth PromotionHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisSmokingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28574573
PMCPMC6481357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.