Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00061045-200602000-00011.
|
Author: | Owen, L 1; Youdan, B 2
|
Institution: | (1)National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2)No Smoking Day, London, UK
|
Title: | 22 years on: the impact and relevance of the UK No Smoking Day.[Article]
|
Source: | Tobacco Control. 15(1):19-25, February 2006.
|
Abstract: | Objectives: To evaluate the impact and relevance of the national awareness day "No Smoking Day" 22 years after it was launched.
Design: Triangulation of data from a variety of sources. Retrospective surveys conducted one week and three months after No Smoking Day, media coverage, website activity, and volume of calls to national smokers' helplines.
Main outcome measures: Self reports of awareness and smoking behaviour changes one week and three months after No Smoking Day. Volume of media coverage, visits to No Smoking Day website, and volumes of calls to smokers' helplines.
Results: Follow up at one week indicates awareness of No Smoking Day is lower in 2004 than in 1986 but still high at 70% for all smokers. The decline in participation from 18% of aware smokers in 1994 to 7% in 2001 has been reversed and in 2005 19% quit or reduced their smoking on No Smoking Day. Three months after No Smoking Day awareness was 78% in 2004, lower than in previous studies but still high and equivalent to 9 965 000 smokers when applied to the population estimate of UK smokers. Likewise participation has decreased but at 14% in 2004 is equivalent to an estimated 1 840 000 (1 in 7 of UK smokers) claiming to quit or reduce their consumption on the Day. Among those who participated, 11% were still not smoking more than three months after the Day, equivalent to an estimated 85 000 smokers (0.7% of UK smokers). Media volume has increased even though campaign spend has remained relatively constant and calls to national smokers' helplines on No Smoking Day are typically four times those received on an average day.
Conclusions: These data suggest that after 22 years No Smoking Day continues to be successful in reaching smokers. With a budget insufficient to pay for advertising, this public awareness campaign supported by local activities appears to be effective in helping smokers to stop.
(C) 2006 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
|
Author Keywords: | No Smoking Day; mass media; impact; helpline; cessation.
|
References: | 1. Office of National Statistics. General Household Survey 2003; mid-2003 population estimates: Great Britain. ONS 2004.
2. Grey A, Owen L, Bolling K. A breath of fresh air: tackling smoking through the media. London: HAD, 2000.
3. Naidoo B, Warm D, Quigley R, et al. Smoking and public health; a review of reviews of interventions to increase smoking cessation, reduce smoking initiation and prevent further uptake of smoking. HAD 2004.
4. Levy DT, Friend K. A computer simulation model of mass media interventions directed at tobacco use. Prev Med 2001;32:284-94.
5. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of anti-smoking advertising campaigns. JAMA 1998;279:772-7.
6. Pierce JP, Macaskill P, Hill D. Long-term effectiveness of mass media led antismoking campaigns in Australia. Am J Public Health 1990;80:565-9.
7. McVey D, Stapleton J. Can anti-smoking television advertising and local tobacco control activity affect smoking behaviour? A controlled trial of the Health Education Authority's anti-smoking campaign. Tob Control 2000;9:273-82.
8. Anon. Smoking kills; a white paper on tobacco. London: HMSO, 1998.
9. Office of National Statistics. Department of Health Statistical Bulletin: Statistics on smoking cessation services in England, April 2003 to March 2004. ONS 2004.
10. Department of Health. Coronary heart disease: national service framework for coronary heart disease. London: DoH, 2000.
11. Department of Health. The NHS cancer plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: DoH, 2000.
12. Acheson D. Independent inquiry into inequalities in health. London: HMSO, 1998.
13. Wanless D. Securing good health for the whole population. London: HM Treasury, 2004.
14. Anon. Choosing health: making healthier choices easier. Public Health White Paper. London: HMSO, 2004.
15. Parrott S, Godfrey C. Economics of smoking cessation. BMJ 2004;328:947-9.
16. Przewozniak K. Participation action for a great European Smoke Out. ENSP 2004.
17. Tones K. Beyond the randomized controlled trial: a case for 'judicial review'. Health Educ Res 1997;12:I-IV, 2.
18. Owen L, Lafferty G. Quitline, An audit of the national helpline for smokers 1995-1998. HEA 2000.
19. UK Awareness Campaign Register. The Profile Group 2005.
20. Jarvis, M. Monitoring cigarette smoking prevalence in Britain in a timely fashion. Addiction 2003;98:1569-74.
21. Lader D, Meltzer H. Smoking behavior and attitudes 2002. ONS 2003.
22. Ossip-Klein DJ, Giovino GA, Megahed N, et al. Effects of a smokers hotline: results from a 10-county self-help trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991;59:325-32.
23. Boyd NR, Windsor RA, Perkins LL, et al. Quality of measurement of smoking status by self-report and saliva cotinine among pregnant women. Maternal and Child Health 1998;2:77-83.
24. Murray RP, Connett JE, Istvan JA, et al. Relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking in a cohort of smokers and ex-smokers followed over 5 years. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:287-94.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | RESEARCH PAPER.
|
Journal Subset: | Behavioral & Social Sciences.
|
ISSN: | 0964-4563
|
NLM Journal Code: | clu, 9209612
|
Annotation(s) | |