Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns

Goldman, Lisa K.·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Active and passive smoking are the first and third leading preventable causes of death. Many states are running or initiating antitobacco media campaigns. OBJECTIVE: To review research on the effectiveness of different antismoking messages and published evidence of the effectiveness of paid antismoking advertising. DATA SOURCES: Focus group studies conducted by professional advertising agencies that contract with California, Massachusetts, and Michigan to run their antismoking advertising campaigns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Media Campaign Resource Book, and copies of the advertisements. In total, we reviewed the results of 186 focus groups involving more than 1500 children and adults dealing with 118 advertisements that had actually been aired and additional concept advertisements that were not produced. Published literature was located using MEDLINE and standard bibliographic sources on the effectiveness of large, paid antitobacco media campaigns. We also reviewed reports and studies conducted by, or for, the California and Massachusetts health departments on program effectiveness, and conducted our own comparison of California vs Massachusetts using cigarette consumption data from the Tobacco Institute. STUDY SELECTION: All available studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight advertising strategies to prevent people from starting to smoke and persuading them to stop were reviewed: industry manipulation, secondhand smoke, addiction, cessation, youth access, short-term effects, long-term health effects, and romantic rejection. These focus groups identified strategies that would be expected to be effective and ineffective. Regression analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the California and Massachusetts programs. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants indicated that industry manipulation and secondhand smoke are the most effective strategies for denormalizing smoking and reducing cigarette consumption. Addiction and cessation can be effective when used in conjunction with the industry manipulation and secondhand smoke strategies. Youth access, short-term effects, long-term health effects, and romantic rejection are not effective strategies. More aggressive advertising strategies appear to be more effective at reducing tobacco consumption.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.279.10.772

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Goldman, L. K.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-03-11
Volume
279
Issue
10
Pages
772
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2132858750
Cited by
327
References
0
FWCI
9.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.279.10.772
The paper
Goldman, L. K. (1998). Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.10.772

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.