IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effectiveness of Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs in Reducing Teenage Smoking: A Review


  • Wakefield, Melanie A PhD
  • Chaloupka, Frank J. PhD


This review focuses on the extent to which comprehensive, statewide, tobacco control programs in the United States have induced change in teenage smoking or made progress towards this goal and under what circumstances such programs are likely to be most effective. The sources for this review include published journal articles, reports and documents, rather than any primary data analysis. We review evidence for the extent to which individual strategies that comprise a comprehensive tobacco control program are related to reducing teenage tobacco use, thereby providing a rationale as to why such comprehensive programs might be expected to reduce adolescent smoking when implemented on a statewide basis. This evidence suggests that school-based smoking prevention programs using the social influences approach, public education through counteradvertising, strongly enforced measures to: prevent youth from purchasing cigarettes, ban smoking in public places and ban tobacco advertising; and real increases in the price of cigarettes, all lead to reductions in teenage tobacco smoking. When implemented as part of statewide programs, however, effects are difficult to assess and unwary legislators risk being poorly informed about the impact of comprehensive programs on teenage smoking. We identify five factors that can mislead: 1) changing population smoking prevalence is likely to be a relatively slow process, even in response to comprehensive programs; 2) smoking prevalence is usually only measured yearly or less frequently and sampling variation and different survey methodologies make these measures insensitive tools for assessing early change; 3) changes in smoking behavior and prevalence can reflect underlying societal influences unrelated to new tobacco control programs; 4) actual implementation of program strategies may differ substantially from intended implementation and the extent of disparity may vary over time and between programs; and 5) tobacco industry activities may undermine tobacco control programs and falsely suggest the programs are ineffective when, in fact, they could be very effective in the absence of industry efforts. For all these reasons, assessment of progress requires much more than a cursory look at teenage smoking prevalence. We argue for taking a larger view that takes account of the extent of program implementation and expenditure, and evaluates markers of progress in factors known to mediate teenage tobacco smoking, as well as change in tobacco smoking itself. Against this background, the report focuses mainly upon five states that have received funding for comprehensive programs: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Oregon and Florida. California: The California Tobacco Control Program, commenced in 1989, found the early program period to be associated with reduced aggregate cigarette consumption beyond what would have been expected from a price increase alone, an excess decline in adult smoking prevalence and stabilization of teenage smoking prevalence at a time when it increased in the rest of the nation. Since 1994 however, effects on both teenage and adult smoking prevalence appear to have been lost, or diminished, coincident with reduced program expenditure in this period. Importantly, these findings are largely supported in these time periods by concomitant change, or lack of it, in teenage tobacco-related beliefs and attitudes, perceptions of ease of access to tobacco, and compliance with school smoking restrictions, as well as an increase in the later period in tobacco advertising and promotion, as evidenced by tobacco industry expenditures and adolescent reports of exposure. Massachusetts: Overall, evidence that the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program (launched in 1993 ), was associated with influencing youth tobacco use is positive and consistent. This is especially true given that trends in prevalence are contrary to those observed nationally since the program’s inception. Evidence of decline in per capita consumption is particularly strong and available research suggests that some of this decline applied to adolescent smokers. Intermediate markers of progress are consistent with high levels of media message recall, acceptance by teenagers of the health risks of smoking and increased restrictions on smoking in public places. Like California, however, compliance with bans on smoking at school has not changed. Accessing tobacco at retail outlets appears more difficult, but most teenagers reported that cigarettes were still easy to obtain. Evidence suggests that social contacts are increasingly more likely to be sources for cigarettes. Arizona: Information available to date from the Arizona Tobacco Education Program suggests that after a slow start in the development of the program, the predominantly youth-directed media campaign has been very intensive and well-recalled by adolescents. Effects on aggregate cigarette consumption were in line with expectations based on the extent of the 1994 price increase. Markers of progress with respect to youth attitudes, exposure to smoking restrictions, reduced youth access and smoking behavior will need to await completion of follow-up surveys later in the year. In addition, the adult-focused campaign which began in 1998 remains to be evaluated and a planned population survey of adults will provide important information about its impact. Oregon: Since the Oregon Tobacco Prevention and Education Program has been in the field for only two full years, relatively limited data are available to assess progress. However, early reports suggest that media messages have reached both adults and teenagers. To date, there are no published measures of changes in tobacco-related knowledge or attitudes, restrictions on smoking in public places, youth access, or tobacco industry promotional activity, although these data are being collected. However, the decline in per capita consumption since the program’s inception is highly consistent with what was observed in California and Massachusetts, being greater than expected from a price increase alone. Similarly, the observed reduction in adult smoking prevalence mirrors that found in Massachusetts and the early program period in California. However, final judgement will need to await release of comparable national data. Florida: Despite being in the field for only one year, the Florida Tobacco Pilot Program has been extremely proactive in its use of media counteradvertising, choosing to focus upon further discrediting the tobacco industry as the prime strategy to discourage adolescents from smoking. In addition, the program has been active in developing programs at the community level. The media campaign is being seen and remembered by teens, and there is evidence that it has increased negative attitudes towards the industry. The indication from the school-based surveys in Florida that teen prevalence significantly declined between 1998 and 1999 is notable, but must await comparison with national trends to determine whether these changes were part of underlying change in teenage smoking patterns. Each of the programs underway in the five states differ by virtue of: their length of time in the field and per capita expenditure on tobacco control; background circumstances under which they were initiated; background trends in teenage smoking prevalence against which they will be judged; the relative allocation of funding to general tobacco control strategies as opposed to youth-specific approaches; selection of messages and strategies within each program component; extent of actual compared with intended implementation; and measures used to assess progress. When appraised individually, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of particular mixes of program inputs in reducing teenage tobacco use. However, when taken together, a number of consistent findings emerge. First, we find that one of the single most critical factors in program success seems to be the extent of implementation, and the degree to which this is undermined by the tobacco industry and other competitors for funding. More fully implemented programs lead to increased counteradvertising and community initiatives; a greater capacity to implement school-based smoking prevention programs; and an increase in the passage of local ordinances that create smoke-free indoor environments and reduce youth access. These factors create an environment more favorable for reduced teenage tobacco use. There is strong evidence from these comprehensive programs, coupled with other research, that price increases influence overall and adolescent tobacco use and that the addition of program activity reduces consumption more than expected due to price alone. There is consistent evidence the programs are associated with a decline in adult smoking prevalence, with these effects observed to date in California, Massachusetts and Oregon. These changes in the normative environment for smoking, coupled with reduced opportunities to smoke and the message of social undesirability offered by increased bans on smoking, are likely to be an important influence on youth smoking. Arizona and Florida -- conducting more youth-focused campaigns -- have yet to examine change in adult prevalence associated with program exposure. Finally, despite the different strengths and combinations of program messages and strategies used in these comprehensive programs, the evidence that they lead to markers of change in factors that influence teenage smoking, and to reductions in teenage smoking prevalence and uptake, is compelling. Plainly, for programs like Arizona, which has yet to report follow-up data, and Florida, which is early in its development, more research is needed to clarify and confirm important early indications of positive progress. Notwithstanding these cautions, we find that the weight of evidence falls in favor of comprehensive tobacco control programs being able to reduce teenage tobacco use. As states decide what level of funding from their tobacco settlement money should be allocated to programs to reduce teenage tobacco use, legislators should not use ‘lack of evidence for benefit’ as an argument to avoid making such allocations. Given progress made by programs in the field, research findings that strongly link tobacco policy advances, counteradvertising and school-based tobacco education programs to reduced youth smoking, and our theoretical understanding of factors that shape teenage tobacco use, comprehensive tobacco control programs are in fact the ‘best buy’ for reducing teenage smoking.

Suggested Citation

  • Wakefield, Melanie A PhD & Chaloupka, Frank J. PhD, 1999. "Effectiveness of Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs in Reducing Teenage Smoking: A Review," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt46n6b9mv, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt46n6b9mv

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Bruvold, W.H., 1993. "A meta-analysis of adolescent smoking prevention programs," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(6), pages 872-880.
    2. Lewit, Eugene M & Coate, Douglas & Grossman, Michael, 1981. "The Effects of Government Regulation on Teenage Smoking," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 545-569, December.
    3. Henry Saffer & Frank Chaloupka, 1999. "Tobacco Advertising: Economic Theory and International Evidence," NBER Working Papers 6958, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Chaloupka, Frank, 1991. "Rational Addictive Behavior and Cigarette Smoking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 722-742, August.
    5. Pierce, J.P. & Macaskill, P. & Hill, D., 1990. "Long-term effectiveness of mass media led antismoking campaigns in Australia," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 80(5), pages 565-569.
    6. Chaloupka, Frank J. & Wechsler, Henry, 1997. "Price, tobacco control policies and smoking among young adults," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 359-373, June.
    7. Flay, B.R. & Koepke, D. & Thomson, S.J. & Santi, S. & Best, J.A. & Brown, K.S., 1989. "Six-year follow-up of the first Waterloo school smoking prevention trial," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(10), pages 1371-1376.
    8. Frank J. Chaloupka & Michael Grossman, 1996. "Price, Tobacco Control Policies and Youth Smoking," NBER Working Papers 5740, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Lewit, Eugene M. & Coate, Douglas, 1982. "The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 121-145, August.
    10. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Donald & Mathios, Alan, 2000. "Putting Out The Fires: Will Higher Taxes Reduce Youth Smoking?," Working Papers 00-3, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    11. Douglas, Stratford, 1998. "The Duration of the Smoking Habit," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(1), pages 49-64, January.
    12. Forster, J.L. & Murray, D.M. & Wolfson, M. & Blaine, T.M. & Wagenaar, A.C. & Hennrikus, D.J., 1998. "The effects of community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(8), pages 1193-1198.
    13. Bauman, K.E. & LaPrelle, J. & Brown, J.D. & Koch, G.G. & Padgett, C.A., 1991. "The influence of three mass media campaigns on variables related to adolescent cigarette smoking: Results of a field experiment," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(5), pages 597-604.
    14. Wasserman, Jeffrey & Manning, Willard G. & Newhouse, Joseph P. & Winkler, John D., 1991. "The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 43-64, May.
    15. Flynn, B.S. & Worden, J.K. & Secker-Walker, R.H. & Pirie, P.L. & Badger, G.J. & Carpenter, J.H. & Geller, B.M., 1994. "Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: Effects 2 years after completion," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(7), pages 1148-1150.
    16. Mudde, A.N. & De Vries, H., 1999. "The reach and effectiveness of a national mass media-led smoking cessation campaign in the Netherlands," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(3), pages 346-350.
    17. Flynn, B.S. & Worden, J.K. & Secker-Walker, R.H. & Badger, G.J. & Geller, B.M. & Costanza, M.C., 1992. "Prevention of cigarette smoking through mass media intervention and school programs," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(6), pages 827-834.
    18. Biener, L. & Aseltine Jr., R.H. & Cohen, B. & Anderka, M., 1998. "Reactions of adult and teenaged smokers to the Massachusetts tobacco tax," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(9), pages 1389-1391.
    19. Douglas, Stratford & Hariharan, Govind, 1994. "The hazard of starting smoking: Estimates from a split population duration model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 213-230, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Göhlmann, Silja & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2008. "Smoking in Germany: Stylized Facts, Behavioral Models, and Health Policy," Ruhr Economic Papers 64, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Donald & Mathios, Alan, 2000. "Putting Out The Fires: Will Higher Taxes Reduce Youth Smoking?," Working Papers 00-3, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Martin Forster & Andrew M. Jones, 2001. "The role of tobacco taxes in starting and quitting smoking: Duration analysis of British data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 164(3), pages 517-547.
    4. repec:zbw:rwirep:0064 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Martin Forster & Andrew M. Jones, "undated". "The role of tobacco taxes in starting and quitting smoking," Discussion Papers 00/51, Department of Economics, University of York.
    6. Silja Göhlmann & Christoph M. Schmidt, 2008. "Smoking in Germany: Stylized Facts, Behavioral Models, and Health Policy," Ruhr Economic Papers 0064, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    7. John A. Tauras & Frank J. Chaloupka, 1999. "Price, Clean Indoor Air, and Cigarette Smoking: Evidence from the Longitudinal Data for Young Adults," NBER Working Papers 6937, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Elena Raptou & Konstadinos Mattas & Constantinos Katrakilidis, 2009. "Investigating Smoker's Profile: The Role of Psychosocial Characteristics and the Effectiveness of Tobacco Policy Tools," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 603-638, April.
    9. Emery, Sherry & White, Martha M. & Pierce, John P., 2001. "Does cigarette price influence adolescent experimentation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 261-270, March.
    10. Frank J. Chaloupka & John A. Tauras & Michael Grossman, 1997. "Public Policy and Youth Smokeless Tobacco Use," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 503-516, October.
    11. Eleni Raptou & Konstadinos Mattas & Efthimia Tsakiridou & Constantinos Katrakilidis, 2005. "Factors Affecting Cigarette Demand," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 11(3), pages 275-290, August.
    12. Hana Ross & Frank J. Chaloupka, 2003. "The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 217-230, March.
    13. Pearl Bader & David Boisclair & Roberta Ferrence, 2011. "Effects of Tobacco Taxation and Pricing on Smoking Behavior in High Risk Populations: A Knowledge Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-22, October.
    14. Dee, Thomas S., 1999. "The complementarity of teen smoking and drinking," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 769-793, December.
    15. Tauras, John A., 2004. "Public policy and smoking cessation among young adults in the United States," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 321-332, June.
    16. Erdal Tekin & Naci Mocan & Lan Liang, 2009. "Do Adolescents with Emotional or Behavioral Problems Respond to Cigarette Prices?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(1), pages 67-85, July.
    17. repec:kap:iaecre:v:11:y:2005:i:3:p:275-290 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Rosa Duarte & José Escario & José Molina, 2006. "The psychosocial behaviour of young Spanish smokers," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 176-189, June.
    19. Deliana Kostova & Frank Chaloupka & Ce Shang, 2015. "A duration analysis of the role of cigarette prices on smoking initiation and cessation in developing countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 279-288, April.
    20. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2006. "The Effectiveness of Anti‐Smoking Legislation: A Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 325-355, July.
    21. Hammar, Henrik & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2001. "Smokers' Decisions To Quit Smoking," Working Papers in Economics 59, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    22. Jeffrey E. Harris & Sandra W. Chan, 1999. "The continuum‐of‐addiction: cigarette smoking in relation to price among Americans aged 15–29," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 81-86, February.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt46n6b9mv. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.