Cited by 63

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Effect of Support for Action Against the Tobacco Industry on Smoking Among Young Adults

Ling, Pamela M., Neilands, Torsten B., Glantz, Stanton A.·2007·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objectives. We investigated associations between tobacco industry denormalization attitudes and the smoking behavior of young adults (aged 18 to 29 years). Methods. We analyzed data from 9455 young adults in the 2002 California Tobacco Survey. Results. The data showed that 27.4% of young adults were “ever smokers” (smoked ≥ 100 cigarettes in their lifetime), of whom 66.9% were current smokers (18.3% of young adults). Denormalization attitudes formed 2 major factors: support for anti–tobacco industry action and mistrust of tobacco companies. In multivariate logistic regression, support for action against the tobacco industry was negatively associated with current smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.13, 0.19) and susceptibility to smoking, after we controlled for demographics, exposure to smokers, and advertising receptivity. Mistrust of tobacco companies was associated with smoking behavior, with anti-industry support acting as a mediating variable. Among current smokers, support for anti–tobacco industry action was strongly associated with intentions to quit (OR=4.64; 95% CI=3.15, 6.84) after we controlled for demographics, exposure to smokers, and advertising receptivity. Conclusions. Support for anti–tobacco industry action protects against smoking and is associated with intentions to quit among young adults. Encouraging involvement in tobacco control and against the tobacco industry may decrease smoking among young adults.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.2006.098806

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

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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 10.1080/14622200500259796 · DOI
  2. 10.1001/jama.280.19.1673 · DOI
  3. 10.1001/jama.284.6.699 · DOI
  4. 10.1136/tc.12.suppl_1.i60 · DOI
  5. 10.2105/AJPH.94.2.326 · DOI
  6. 10.2105/AJPH.2003.026054 · DOI
  7. 10.2105/AJPH.92.3.414 · DOI
  8. 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i92 · DOI
  9. 10.1001/jama.287.22.2983 · DOI
  10. 10.2105/AJPH.92.6.908 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1001/jama.279.10.772 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.1.22 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981215)83:12A+<2736::AID-CNCR15>3.0.CO;2-2 · DOI
  14. 10.1001/jama.280.10.893 · DOI
  15. 10.1097/00124784-200006030-00003 · DOI
  16. 10.2105/AJPH.94.2.255 · DOI
  17. 10.2105/AJPH.92.6.901 · DOI
  18. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.049692 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1136/tc.12.suppl_4.iv46 · DOI
  20. 10.1097/01.mop.0000176442.49743.31 · DOI
  21. 10.1001/jama.279.7.511 · DOI
  22. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.057232 · DOI
  23. 10.1136/tc.2004.009712 · DOI
  24. 10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290100065011 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/S1054-139X(96)00170-X · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00459-2 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.430 · DOI
  28. 10.1136/tc.7.4.397 · DOI
  29. 10.2105/AJPH.91.2.233 · DOI
  30. 10.1136/tc.9.2.177 · DOI
  31. 10.1001/archpedi.158.3.269 · DOI
  32. 10.2105/AJPH.83.9.1333 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/09595230220138993 · DOI
  34. 10.1006/pmed.2002.1100 · DOI
  35. 10.1136/tc.10.1.9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ling, P. M., Neilands, T. B., & Glantz, S. A.
Affiliations
Pamela M. Ling is with the Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, and Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco. Torsten B. Neilands is with the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco. Stanton A. Glantz is with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, the Institute for Health Policy Studies, and the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the University of California, San Francisco.
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2007-08
Volume
97
Issue
8
Pages
1449-1456
ISSN
  • 0090-0036
  • 1541-0048
Cited by
63
References
0
Language
en

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