Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29582078›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2018

Association Between Receptivity to Tobacco Advertising and Progression to Tobacco Use in Youth and Young Adults in the PATH Study.

John P Pierce, James D Sargent, David B Portnoy, Martha White, Madison Noble, Sheila Kealey, Nicolette Borek, Charles Carusi, Kelvin Choi, Victoria R Green and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of Smoking and Vaping in Films on Smoking and Vaping Uptake in Adolescents: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Evidence of Youth-Appealing Cigarette Advertising Tactics from a Randomized, Controlled Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Negative Perceptions of Young People Using E-Cigarettes on Instagram: An Experiment With Adolescents.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  9. Tobacco Advertising Features That May Contribute to Product Appeal Among US Adolescents and Young Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  10. Optimizing Warnings on E-Cigarette Advertisements.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Measuring susceptibility to use tobacco in an increasingly complex consumer marketplace: How many questions do we really need?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

John P PierceCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
James D SargentC. Everett Koop Institute, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
David B PortnoyCenter for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Martha WhiteCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Madison NobleCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Sheila KealeyCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Nicolette BorekCenter for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Charles CarusiWestat, Rockville, Maryland.
Kelvin ChoiNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland.
Victoria R GreenNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Annette R KaufmanTobacco Control Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Eric LeasCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
M Jane LewisDepartment of Health Education and Behavioral Science, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Katherine A MargolisCenter for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Karen MesserCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Yuyan ShiCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Marushka L SilveiraNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Kimberly SnyderCenter for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Cassandra A StantonWestat, Rockville, Maryland.
Susanne E TanskiC. Everett Koop Institute, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Maansi Bansal-TraversRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Health Behavior, Buffalo, New York.
Dennis TrinidadCancer Prevention Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Andrew HylandRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Health Behavior, Buffalo, New York.
University of California, San Diego · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USCotton (United States) · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · USWestat (United States) · USNational Cancer Institute · USNational Institute on Drug Abuse · USNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities · USNational Institutes of Health · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Understanding and reducing tobacco-related health disparities through social and behavioral researchZIAMD000006 · NIMHD · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES · PI CHOI, KELVIN · 2015 to 2025
$7.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100027C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cigarette marketing contributes to initiation of cigarette smoking among young people, which has led to restrictions on use of cigarette advertising. However, little is known about other tobacco advertising and progression to tobacco use in youth and young adults. Objective: To investigate whether receptivity to tobacco advertising among youth and young adults is associated with progression (being a susceptible never user or ever user) to use of the product advertised, as well as conventional cigarette smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study at wave 1 (2013-2014) and 1-year follow-up at wave 2 (2014-2015) was conducted in a US population-based sample of never tobacco users aged 12 to 24 years from wave 1 of the PATH Study (N = 10 989). Household interviews using audio computer-assisted self-interviews were conducted. Exposures: Advertising for conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, and smokeless tobacco products at wave 1. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression to susceptibility or ever tobacco use at 1-year follow-up in wave 2. Results: Of the 10 989 participants (5410 male [weighted percentage, 48.3%]; 5579 female [weighted percentage, 51.7%]), receptivity to any tobacco advertising at wave 1 was high for those aged 12 to 14 years (44.0%; 95% confidence limit [CL], 42.6%-45.4%) but highest for those aged 18 to 21 years (68.7%; 95% CL, 64.9%-72.2%). e-Cigarette advertising had the highest receptivity among all age groups. For those aged 12 to 17 years, susceptibility to use a product at wave 1 was significantly associated with product use at wave 2 for conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco products. Among committed never users aged 12 to 17 years at wave 1, any receptivity was associated with progression toward use of the product at wave 2 (conventional cigarettes: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CL, 1.23-1.65; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.62; 95% CL, 1.41-1.85; cigars: AOR, 2.01; 95% CL, 1.62-2.49; and smokeless [males only]: AOR, 1.42; 95% CL, 1.07-1.89) and with use of the product (conventional cigarettes: AOR, 1.54; 95% CL, 1.03-2.32; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.45; 95% CL, 1.19-1.75; cigars: AOR, 2.07; 95% CL, 1.26-3.40). Compared with those not receptive to any product advertising, receptivity to e-cigarette advertising, but not to cigarette advertising, was independently associated with those aged 12 to 21 years having used a cigarette at wave 2 (AOR, 1.60; 95% CL, 1.08-2.38). Conclusions and Relevance: Receptivity to tobacco advertising was significantly associated with progression toward use in adolescents. Receptivity was highest for e-cigarette advertising and was associated with trying a cigarette.

Indexed as

AdvertisingAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorChildDisease SusceptibilityElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleSmokingTobacco, SmokelessTobacco UseUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29582078
PMCPMC5875336
OpenAlexW2791565780

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.