Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on youths.

OBJECTIVES We examined the cognitive and behavioral effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on youths aged 12.5 to 18 years and report core evaluation results. METHODS From September 1999 to June 2004, 3 nationally representative cohorts of US youths aged 9 to 18 years were surveyed at home 4 times. Sample size ranged from 8117 in the first to 5126 in the fourth round (65% first-round response rate, with 86%-93% of still eligible youths interviewed subsequently). Main outcomes were self-reported lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day marijuana use and related cognitions. RESULTS Most analyses showed no effects from the campaign. At one round, however, more ad exposure predicted less intention to avoid marijuana use (gamma = -0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13, -0.01) and weaker antidrug social norms (gamma = -0.05; 95% CI = -0.08, -0.02) at the subsequent round. Exposure at round 3 predicted marijuana initiation at round 4 (gamma = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.22). CONCLUSIONS Through June 2004, the campaign is unlikely to have had favorable effects on youths and may have had delayed unfavorable effects. The evaluation challenges the usefulness of the campaign.

[1]  K. Davis,et al.  Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. , 2005, American journal of public health.

[2]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[3]  G. Imbens.  The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions , 1999 .

[4]  W. DeJong,et al.  Strategies to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[5]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[6]  Patrick M. O'Malley,et al.  Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2004. , 2003 .

[7]  R. Hornik,et al.  Can We Measure Encoded Exposure? Validation Evidence From a National Campaign , 2002, Journal of health communication.

[8]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Invited commentary: propensity scores. , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  M. Siegel.  The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: a review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. , 2002, Annual review of public health.

[10]  R. Flewelling,et al.  Implementing research‐based substance abuse prevention in communities: Effects of a coalition‐based prevention initiative in Vermont , 2005 .

[11]  L. Donohew,et al.  Effects of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Marijuana Initiative Campaign on high-sensation-seeking adolescents. , 2007, American journal of public health.

[12]  J K Worden,et al.  Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: effects 2 years after completion. , 1994, American journal of public health.

[13]  J. Brehm.  A theory of psychological reactance. , 1981 .

[14]  Elaine L. Zanutto,et al.  Matching With Doses in an Observational Study of a Media Campaign Against Drug Abuse , 2001, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[15]  L. Donohew,et al.  Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. , 2001, American journal of public health.

[16]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[17]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  Assessing the impact of antidrug advertising on adolescent drug consumption: results from a behavioral economic model. , 2002, American journal of public health.

[18]  R. S. Hopkins,et al.  Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida "truth" campaign. , 2001, American journal of public health.

[19]  L. Biener,et al.  The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. , 2000, American journal of public health.

[20]  E. Trapido,et al.  Evidence of the dose effects of an antitobacco counteradvertising campaign. , 2002, Preventive medicine.

[21]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[22]  J. Winsten,et al.  Promoting designated drivers: the Harvard Alcohol Project. , 1994, American journal of preventive medicine.

[23]  Brad J. Bushman,et al.  Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence , 1996 .

[24]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .