MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours

2011· review· en· W1600860612 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)MedicineTobacco industryInclusion (mineral)AdvertisingYouth smokingReceptivityHealth promotionMeta-analysisBaseline (sea)Cochrane LibraryPsychologyFamily medicineTobacco controlSocial psychologyPublic healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The tobacco industry denies that their marketing is targeted at young nonsmokers, but it seems more probable that tobacco advertising and promotion influences the attitudes of nonsmoking adolescents, and makes them more likely to try smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tobacco advertising and promotion on nonsmoking adolescents' future smoking behaviour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Group specialized register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstracts, PsycLIT, ERIC, WorldCat, Dissertation Abstracts, ABI Inform and Current Contents to August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected longitudinal studies that assessed individuals' smoking behaviour and exposure to advertising, receptivity or attitudes to tobacco advertising, or brand awareness at baseline, and assessed smoking behaviour at follow ups. Participants were adolescents aged 18 or younger who were not regular smokers at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were prescreened for relevance by one reviewer. Two reviewers independently assessed relevant studies for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen longitudinal studies that followed up a total of over 29,000 baseline nonsmokers met inclusion criteria. The studies measured exposure or receptivity to advertising and promotion in a variety of ways, including having a favourite advertisement or an index of receptivity based on awareness of advertising and ownership of a promotional item. One study measured the number of tobacco advertisements in magazines read by participants. All studies assessed smoking behaviour change in participants who reported not smoking at baseline. In 18 of the 19 studies the nonsmoking adolescents who were more aware of tobacco advertising or receptive to it, were more likely to have experimented with cigarettes or become smokers at follow up. There was variation in the strength of association, and the degree to which potential confounders were controlled for. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal studies consistently suggest that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion is associated with the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke. Based on the strength and specificity of this association, evidence of a dose-response relationship, the consistency of findings across numerous observational studies, temporality of exposure and smoking behaviours observed, as well as the theoretical plausibility regarding the impact of advertising, we conclude that tobacco advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it