The impact of media campaigns on smoking cessation activity: a structural vector autoregression analysis.
ABSTRACT To evaluate the effect of tobacco control media campaigns and pharmaceutical company-funded advertising for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation activity.
Multiple time series analysis using structural vector autoregression, January 2002-May 2010.
England and Wales.
Tobacco control campaign data from the Central Office of Information; commercial NRT campaign data; data on calls to the National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking helpline from the Department of Health; point-of-sale data on over-the-counter (OTC) sales of NRT; and prescribing data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a database of UK primary care records.
Monthly calls to the NHS stop smoking helpline and monthly rates of OTC sales and prescribing of NRT.
A 1% increase in tobacco control television ratings (TVRs), a standard measure of advertising exposure, was associated with a statistically significant 0.085% increase in calls in the same month (P = 0.007), and no statistically significant effect in subsequent months. Tobacco control TVRs were not associated with OTC NRT sales or prescribed NRT. NRT advertising TVRs had a significant effect on NRT sales which became non-significant in the seasonally adjusted model, and no significant effect on prescribing or calls.
Tobacco control campaigns appear to be more effective at triggering quitting behaviour than pharmaceutical company NRT campaigns. Any effect of such campaigns on quitting behaviour seems to be restricted to the month of the campaign, suggesting that such campaigns need to be sustained over time.
- SourceAvailable from: onlinelibrary.wiley.com[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Our previous finding of a fractal pattern for gastric pH and esophageal pH plus the statistical association of sequential pH values for up to 2 h led to our hypothesis that the fractal pattern encodes information regarding gastric acidity and that depending on the value of gastric acidity, the esophagus can signal the stomach to alter gastric acidity by influencing gastric secretion of acid or bicarbonate. Under our hypothesis values of gastric pH should provide information regarding values of esophageal pH and vice versa. We used vector autoregression, a theory-free set of inter-related linear regressions used to measure relationships that can change over time, to analyze data from 24-h recordings of gastric pH and esophageal pH. We found that in pH records from normal subjects, as well as from subjects with gastroesophageal reflux disease alone and after treatment with a proton pump inhibitor, gastric pH values provided important information regarding subsequent values of esophageal pH and values of esophageal pH provided important information regarding subsequent values of gastric pH. The ability of gastric pH and esophageal pH to provide information regarding subsequent values of each other was reduced in subjects with gastroesophageal reflux disease compared to normal subjects. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that depending on the value of gastric acidity, the esophagus can signal the stomach to alter gastric acidity, and that this ability is impaired in subjects with gastroesophageal reflux disease.Physiological Reports. 07/2014; 2(7).
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To investigate the effects of different types of televised mass media campaign content on calls to the English NHS Stop Smoking helpline.Preventive medicine. 09/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although there is some evidence to support an association between exposure to televised tobacco control campaigns and recall among youth, little research has been conducted among adults. In addition, no previous work has directly compared the impact of different types of emotive campaign content. The present study examined the impact of increased exposure to tobacco control advertising with different types of emotive content on rates and durations of self-reported recall.BMC Public Health 05/2014; 14(1):432. · 2.08 Impact Factor