Cited by 500Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSchool Health and Nursing Education

Evidence of a Dose—Response Relationship Between “truth” Antismoking Ads and Youth Smoking Prevalence

Open access
Farrelly, Matthew C., Davis, Kevin C., Haviland, M. Lyndon, Messeri, Peter, Healton, Cheryl G.·2005·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objectives. In early 2000, the American Legacy Foundation launched the national “truth” campaign, the first national antismoking campaign to discourage tobacco use among youths. We studied the impact of the campaign on national smoking rates among US youths (students in grades 8, 10, and 12). Methods. We used data from the Monitoring the Future survey in a pre/post quasi-experimental design to relate trends in youth smoking prevalence to varied doses of the “truth” campaign in a national sample of approximately 50000 students in grades 8, 10, and 12, surveyed each spring from 1997 through 2002. Results. Findings indicate that the campaign accounted for a significant portion of the recent decline in youth smoking prevalence. We found that smoking prevalence among all students declined from 25.3% to 18.0% between 1999 and 2002 and that the campaign accounted for approximately 22% of this decline. Conclusions. This study showed that the campaign was associated with substantial declines in youth smoking and has accelerated recent declines in youth smoking prevalence.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.2004.049692

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farrelly, M. C., Davis, K. C., Haviland, M. L., Messeri, P., & Healton, C. G.
Affiliations
Truth Initiative (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2005-03
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
425-431
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2127440586
Cited by
500
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 35
FWCI
21.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Michigan
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
truth campaign, anti-smoking advertising, adolescent smoking, smoking prevalence, tobacco control, dose-response relationship, adolescent tobacco use, anti-smoking campaigns
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Psychology, Adolescent, Advertising, Attitude to Health, Child, Female, Health Education, Health Surveys, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Mass Media, Population Surveillance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking, Students, Television, Truth Disclosure, United States, Program Evaluation, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Tobacco Industry

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