HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2007.125849v1 98/12/2229    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hornik, R. Articles by Kalton, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hornik, R. Articles by Kalton, G. Related Collections Health Promotion Adolescent Health Media Prevention Other Statistics/Evaluation/Research Drugs

Robert Hornik, PhD, Lela Jacobsohn, PhD, Robert Orwin, PhD, Andrea Piesse, PhD and Graham Kalton, PhD

Robert Hornik and Lela Jacobsohn are with the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Robert Orwin, Andrea Piesse, and Graham Kalton are with Westat, Rockville, MD.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert Hornik, PhD, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (e-mail: rhornik{at}asc.upenn.edu).

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 ( = –0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = –0.13, –0.01) and weaker antidrug social norms ( = –0.05; 95% CI = –0.08, –0.02) at the subsequent round. Exposure at round 3 predicted marijuana initiation at round 4 ( = 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.