Skip to main content
Download PDF

The influence of anti-smoking messages to Indonesian youth smoking behavior: the Indonesian 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS)

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 907 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Various anti-tobacco promotions have emerged in order to reduce the detrimental impacts of tobacco advertising on adolescents. The objective of this study is to explore the relationship between the exposure to anti-smoking messages and Indonesian youth smoking behavior.

Method

We used secondary data from the Indonesian 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS). The participants were students from grades seven to twelve. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the relationship of anti-smoking messages exposure on the smoking behavior variable. We used complex samples process logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and controlling for relevant covariables.

Results

The percentage of the exposure to anti-smoking messages in all types were not more than 25% in each outcome variables. The results also showed that in the current smoker variables, adolescent who exposed to the two variables of anti-smoking messages increased the odds to become current smoker. The variables were anti smoking messages in media (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.15–1.73) and in school (AOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.06–1.50). On the other hand, in the smoking susceptibility variables, there were no variables of anti-smoking messages that had relation with it.

Conclusions

The study concluded that there were only two variables of the anti-smoking messages that had relation with the Indonesian youth smoking behavior, which were current smokers. Unfortunately those variables increased the odds of the respondents to become current smokers. Indonesia government should develop media following international best practices to convey the anti-smoking messages.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

By 2019, approximately 1 billion people worldwide used tobacco products, including 847 million men and 153 million women [1]. A total of 25 million of these tobacco users are teenagers aged 13 to 15 [2]. The Southeast Asia Region (SEARO) and Western Pacific Region (WPRO) have the most smokers, accounting for approximately 6.4 million and 4.7 million, respectively [2]. Indonesia is a major contributor to the region’s number of smokers [2].

In Indonesia, adolescents aged 13 to 18 had a smoking prevalence of about 38.3% [2]. This percentage was significantly higher than in neighboring Malaysia (20.6%), Thailand (17.2%), and Myanmar (17%) [2]. Indonesia also had the youngest of age smoking initiation among the Association of Southeast Asia Nation (ASEAN) countries, which was around 16.8 years old [2, 3]. As a result, the Indonesian government must implement best practices in tobacco control in order to reduce the burden of tobacco-related diseases.

A large number of studies indicates that smoking at a young age has a negative impact on health instantly and increases the development of chronic diseases throughout one’s life [4]. Cigarette smoking in youth can lead to nicotine addiction, which has a long-term negative impact on brain development [5]. Furthermore, young smokers are at risk of slowing lung function and impaired lung growth [5]. An earlier case–control research in Blitar City found that smoking before the age of 15 increased the risk of getting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) by 12 times compared to not smoking at all [6].

In addition, tobacco industries use both direct and indirect marketing efforts, such as sponsorship of sporting events and music festivals (e.g. billboards and commercials) [4]. Previous research have conclusively shown a relationship between teenage smoking behavior and tobacco advertisement [7,8,9]. Various anti-tobacco advertising have appeared in an effort to lessen the negative effects tobacco promotions have on youth. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that there were four health communication strtategies to convey anti-smoking messages, which were paid media, earned media, social media, and program communication [10]. Most advertising have emphasized negative health implications, defying social forces and influences, or the tobacco industry’s financial interests and other aspects [11,12,13].

Several researches looked at how anti-tobacco media affected teenage tobacco use reduction or prevention [14, 15]. Other researches related to anti-tobacco media focused on the anti-smoking initiatives and current smoking status in order to design effective interventions to curtail the smoking epidemic [16]. In 2014, a study conducted by Minh et al., analyzed the access to antismoking information among school children aged 13 to 15 years in Vietnam and examined its potential impact on preventing smoking initiation [17]. Several researches found that anti-smoking messages can be conveyed through various means. For example, study conducted by Huang et al., (2018) found that testimonial commercials with visual and emotionally evocative depictions of smoking-related ailments, may have a stronger effect on encouraging Taiwanese smokers to quit smoking [18]. Another example was a study conducted by Manocci et al., [19] showed that teenagers prefer anti smoking messages with scientific profile and those who uncover incorrect preconceptions about smoking.

However, few utilized secondary data to investigate youth smoking behavior and anti-smoking media in the national context. The secondary data’ analysis will be beneficial for the government to make adjustment in the public health policy and public health programs. Therefore, our objective was to to explore the relationship between the exposure to anti-smoking messages and adolescents’ smoking behavior based on the Indonesian 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS).

Methods

Data source

The Indonesian GYTS 2019 was a cross-sectional study undertaken in Indonesia’s public and private schools to evaluate tobacco use among students aged 13 to 17. The authors obtained the Indonesia GYTS 2019 data from the CDC website: https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2.

The sample for the survey was divided into two phases: the first phase was choosing schools with probability proportionate to size (PPS). The second stage was selecting classes at random from different schools. The whole student population from the chosen classes was surveyed [20].

Sample size calculations were carried out using standard methods by the CDC, Atlanta. Sample distribution divided into 3 regions namely Java, Sumatra and others. Each region is selected 25 junior high schools and 25 high school schools per region, and each school was randomly selected as a class with a random number assigned to each school. Total sampling 150 schools, located in 30 provinces.

The sample size from each school will differ according to the number of classes and students in each school. All students in the class selected as the sample will took part in the survey and distributed questionnaires and answer sheets. The predicted number of samples matched inclusion criteria of around 10,500 students. All students in the sampled class will as respondents (total sample will be more than 10,500 students).

The process of data collection begun by the enumerators had a small discussion with the teacher team and administration at school, explained the sample class, and all students in the class took part in the survey. The interview will be conducted on all students who in the selected class, with an estimated time of 45 min. All equipment surveys (questionnaires, answer sheets, stationery and erasers) were provided by the research team.

Before the questionnaire is distributed to each student, the enumerators will explain about the procedures for filling out answer sheets and the questionnaire. Each student will be asked for approval to participate in surveys. The data collected is the primary data resulting from the answer choices immediately from every student. After completing all the questionnaires the answer sheets will be collected and brought by the research team.

Variables

We used three variables in this study: outcome variables, covariates, and independent variables. The first variable was outcome variables that consisted current smoking behavior and smoking susceptibility. The next variable was covariates that consisted of characteristic of the respondents, accessibility to buy cigarettes, second hand smoking, and tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) exposure. And the last variable was independent variables that consisted of anti-smoking messages in media, at events, and at schools. The description of each variables were described in the Table 1.

Table 1 Variables of the study
Full size table

Statistical analysis

We used complete cases in our study and took the complex sampling plan into account. We assessed the demographic information of the respondents and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the correlation between the results and the independent variables. STATA 16.0 was used to analyze the data.

Ethical clearance

The Indonesian 2019 GYTS has passed ethical clearance from the Health Research Ethics Commission, National Health Research and Development Agency, with notification number: LB.02.01/2/KE.315/2019. The authors delete all respondents’ identities from the dataset. Respondents have provided written approval for their involvement in the study through filling the informed concent. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Results

Tables 2 and 3 show that the tolerance value for all variables is greater than 0.10, whereas the VIF value for all variables is smaller than 10.00. According to the multicollinearity test, the test shows that there was no strong association between independent variables in the regression model.

Table 2 Results for the co-linearity (Dependent variable: current smoker variable)
Full size table
Table 3 Results for the co-linearity (Dependent variable: smoking susceptibility variable)
Full size table

Table 4 showed the distribution of respondents by current smoker and smoking susceptibility. Based on the sex, the percentage of male much greater than female in the both current smoker and smoking susceptibility variables. According to the education level, both of the outcome variables have similar percentage of the result. And for the weekly spending money, the current smoker variables and smoking susceptibility variables had the highest percentage in the group of less than IDR 11,000.

Table 4 Distribution of respondents by current smoker and smoking susceptibility
Full size table

The accessibility to buy or consume cigarette variable showed that almost 20% of current smoker group and more than 10% of susceptible group were easy to buy cigarette. Further, the second hand smoking variables showed that in all places (in house and in school) significantly related to the outcome variables (p value: 0.001, < 0.01, < 0.05). In addition, the TAPS exposure variables showed similar result that all the type of TAPS exposure were significantly related to the outcomes variables (p value: 0.001, < 0.01, < 0.05).

Tobacco advertisements, as one of the components of TAPS, showed that the p value in each outcome variables were < 0.001 and the percentage of the exposure of more than 1 type of tobacco advertisements in each variable were 19.8% (current smoker) and 12.7% (smoking susceptibility).

The other components of TAPS were tobacco promotions, showed that the p value in both outcome variables were similiar (< 0.001) and the percentage of the exposure of more than 1 type of tobacco promotions in each variable were 40.3% (current smoker) and 26.4% (smoking susceptibility).

The last components of TAPS were tobacco sponsorships, showed that the p value in both outcome variables were similiar (< 0.001) and the percentage of the exposure of more than 1 type of tobacco sponsorships in each variable were 40.3% (current smoker) and 22.7% (smoking susceptibility).

The result also showed that the percentage of the exposure anti-smoking messages in all types to the outcome variables were not more than 30%. In the current smoker group, only anti-smoking messages at events exposed more than 25% of them. Meanwhile, the anti-smoking messages in media and school exposed less than 25% to the current smoker group.

In the smoking susceptibility group, the percentage of the exposure to anti-smoking messages were lower than 15% in all types. Anti-smoking messages on media and at events exposed around 13% to the smoking susceptibility group, while anti-smoking messages in school exposed around only 11% to the smoking susceptibility group.

Table 5 showed multivariate analysis of the relationship between the exposure of anti-smoking messages with current smoker variable and smoking susceptibility variable among Indonesian youth. The multivariate analysis conducted after controlling all covariates, which were characteristic of the respondents, accessibility to buy cigarettes, second hand smoking, and TAPS exposure.

Table 5 Multivariate analysis of the relationship between the exposure of anti-smoking messages with current smoker and smoking susceptibility
Full size table

Based on current smoker variables, adolescent who exposed to the two variables of anti-smoking messages increased the odds to become current smoker. The variables were anti smoking messages in media (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.15–1.73) and at events (AOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.06–1.50). Meanwhile, the exposure of anti-smoking messages in the school did not have relation with current smoker variables.

In the smoking susceptibility variables, there were no types of anti-smoking messages that were significantly related. It indicated that any type of anti-smoking messages had no relation with the susceptibility of smoking.

Discussion

Our study showed that the result of our independent variables differed from majority of the researches. As a matter of fact, the exposure to anti-smoking media and at events increased the odds to become current smokers. While other independent variables were not significantly related to the outcomes variables. It meant that the anti-smoking messages needed to be modified so that the Indonesian youth understand and implement the important anti-smoking messages.

Our study found that anti-smoking messages in media and at event increased the odd to become current smoker and there were no relation with smoking susceptibility. It meant that the messages stimulated the youth to initiate or continue smoking cigarette. The findings were contrary to the majority researches that conclude any kind of media and program communication contributed to decrease the risk smoking behavior among youth group [21,22,23].

The result of anti-smoking messages in school variable showed slightly different from the other independent variables. Anti-smoking messages in school were not related to both outcomes variables. It meant that the messages were not effective enough to convey anti-smoking messages to the Indonesian youth. The findings were to some extent divers from the mostly previous study about anti-smoking campaign, particularly in the school. The previous study found that school were able to convey the anti-smoking messages, such as prevent and encourage youth not to initiate smoking cigarettes, the danger of smoking, etc [24, 25].

Based on the authors’s experiences in the tobacco control field, the situation above happened because of several causes, such as the tobacco industry interference (TII) and the intensity of TAPS exposure. TII is several actions designed by tobacco industry to tackle and interfere with tobacco control, some of which are direct and indirect political lobbying and campaign contributions, financing of research, attempting to affect the course of regulatory and policy machinery and engaging in social responsibility initiatives as part of public relations campaigns [26]. In 2021, the result of the Global Tobacco Index score in Indonesia was 83 and the rank was 77th from 80 countries [27]. It means that TII in Indonesia was still high compare to other countries.

The intensity of TAPS exposure and youth smoking behavior in Indonesia was proven by several researchers. In 2016, Prabandari et al., conducted study about assessing the relation between youths’ perceive of cigarette advertising and smoking initiation. This study discovered that cigarette advertisements were considered as influencing teenagers to smoke, and that smoking status was consistently correlated with perception of youth-targeted cigarette advertisements, attitude toward TAPS, susceptibility, and smoking friends and family [28]. Sutrisno et al., in 2021 found that there was a strong association between cigarette advertisement exposure and smoking friends and adolescents’ intention to smoke in the immediate and long term in Sleman Regency, Indonesia [29]. In Malang, Indonesia, during the pandemic situation, Laili et al., found that youth were quite highly exposed to the various types of advertisements and promotions of cigarettes that can influence increased smoking behavior [30].

However, Indonesia had several campaign conveying the anti-smoking messages. National campaign that launched by Indonesian Ministry of Health in 2016 were Suara Hati Anak (the voice of children) [31, 32]. The campaign was taken from the true story of a smoker in Muara Angke, North Jakarta, who because of his smoking habit ended up ruining the lives of his children. The other national campaign was Suara Tanpa Rokok (voice without cigarette) [33, 34]. The campaign talked about health consequences from smoking cigarettes.

On the other hand, almost all of covariates statistically had relation with the outcome variables, particularly second hand smoking (saw anyone smoking in house, school, and parents smoking), and TAPS [35] exposure. These findings were similar with majority of the previous researches. Study conducted by Efendi et al., (2019) found that in rural Indonesia, a significant portion of young men and teenagers consume tobacco [36]. Vitoria et al., (2020) stated in their findings that if their parents smoked, the respondents (senior high school students) had a higher likelihood of smoking as well [37]. Nurmansyah et al., (2020) stated that the smoking behavior of the respondents (teenagers in City of Depok, Indonesia) were found to be highly influenced by peer (friend), family, and teachers who smoked [38].

This study showed that TAPS exposure variables were significantly related to the outcomes variables. The findings were in line with previous researches that TAPS in all kind and creative form were related to the youth smoking behavior. Several researchers found that tobacco advertising (such as TV, internet, billboard, etc.) were the determining factors to the smoking behaviour [39, 40]. Tobbaco promotion (such as free vouchers, free gift, etc.) also contributed to the smoking behavior in youth group, some researches found that the initiation to smoking cigarette due to the tobacco promotion [41, 42]. Tobacco sponsorship (such as in the sports events, community events, etc.) also were one of the factors that lead youth to initiate smoking cigarette [43, 44].

Researcheres and some agencies stated that to convey anti-smoking messages effectively we can use health communications as a strategy [45]. CDC formulated that there were four types of health communication strategy to convey anti-smoking messages, which were paid media, earned media, social media, and program communication. Anti-smoking messages contain many information about the prevention of smoking, smoking cessation, the danger of smoking, etc [46, 47]. Adult- and youth-targeted public education efforts can have a significant impact on youth by avoiding initiation to smoke and maintaining prevalence reductions [46].

Study limitation

This study has a limitation: the study’s variable is limited and depends on the availability of secondary data (GYTS data). And also, the authors don’t have specific information in the some detail aspects, such as what is the main message in the anti-smoking campaign, what kind of internet the respondent use when see TAPS or anti-smoking messages. etc. However, the study has a positive impact on the tobacco control programs in Indonesia, particularly to prevent youth from smoking, and this study can be estimated to the national level with correct weight to describe the level of the problem at the national level. Furthermore this study can be used by other researches to investigate deeper aspect of anti-smoking campaign in Indonesia, such as, the messages, the program, etc.

Conclusions

The study concluded that there were only two variables of the anti-smoking messages that had relation with the Indonesian youth smoking behavior, which were current smokers. Unfortunately those variables increased the odds of the respondents to become current smokers. Based on the findings of the research, we recommend to Indonesia government to develop a new anti-smoking messages following international best practices [21,22,23] in all type of channel of communication so that Indonesian youth can easily access to it and to counter tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the CDC website repository, https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2.

References

  1. WHO. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2021 addressing new and emerging products. Geneva; 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/343287/9789240032095-eng.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y.

  2. Lian TY, Dorotheo U. The tobacco control atlas: ASEAN Region. 5th ed. Bangkok; 2021. https://www.seatca.org/dmdocuments/SEATCA ASEAN Tobacco Control Atlas_5th Ed.pdf.

  3. Soerojo W, Bigwanto M, Susilo D, Wiyono NH, Aditama TY, Achadi A. Fakta Tembakau Indonesia 2020 Data Empirik untuk Pengendalian Tembakau. Jakarta: Ikatan Ahli Kesehatan Masyarakat Indonesia; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  4. USDHSS. Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults. Atlanta; 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/.

  5. USDHSS. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress. Atlanta; 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/.

  6. Safitri W, Martini S, Artanti KD, Li C-Y. Smoking from a younger age is the dominant factor in the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: case-control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:6047. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shang C, Huang J, Cheng K-W, Li Q, Chaloupka FJ. Global evidence on the association between POS advertising bans and youth smoking participation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Agaku IT, King BA, Dube SR. Trends in exposure to pro-tobacco advertisements over the internet, in newspapers/magazines, and at retail stores among U.S. middle and high school students, 2000–2012. Prev Med (Baltim). 2014;58:45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Megatsari H, Ridlo IA, Amir V, Kusuma D. Visibility and hotspots of outdoor tobacco advertisement around educational facilities without an advertising ban: geospatial analysis in Surabaya City. Indonesia Tob Prev Cessat. 2019;5:32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andersen S, Brossart L, Zoschke I, Ashby C, Foster E, Barth R et al. Health communications in tobacco prevention and control. Atlanta; 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/bp-health-communications/pdfs/health-communications-508.pdf.

  11. Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster DV, Unger JB, Johnson CA, Mouttapa M, et al. Longitudinal effects of pro-tobacco and anti-tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2006;8:455–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan L, O’Hara B, Phongsavan P, Bauman A, Freeman B. Review of evaluation metrics used in digital and traditional tobacco control campaigns. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17432.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dono J, Miller C, Ettridge K, Wilson C. The role of social norms in the relationship between anti-smoking advertising campaigns and smoking cessation: a scoping review. Health Educ Res. 2020;35:179–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Emory KT, Messer K, Vera L, Ojeda N, Elder JP, Usita P, et al. Receptivity to cigarette and tobacco control messages and adolescent smoking initiation. Tob Control. 2015;24:281–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Erguder T, Bilir N, Özcebe H, Irmak H, Tasti E, İlter H, et al. Exposure to anti- and pro-tobacco advertising, promotions or sponsorships: Turkey, 2008. Glob Health Promot. 2016;23:58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rao S, Aslam SK, Zaheer S, Shafique K. Anti-smoking initiatives and current smoking among 19,643 adolescents in South Asia: findings from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey. Harm Reduct J. 2014;11:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Minh H, Giang KB, Hai PT, Hoang TD, Huyen DT, Khue LN, et al. Access to anti-smoking information among school children and its potential impact on preventing smoking initiation: results from the Global Youth Tobacco Use Survey (GYTS) 2014 in Viet Nam. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:31–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang L-L, Friedman DB, Lin F-C, Thrasher JF. Which types of anti-smoking television advertisements work better in Taiwan? Health Promot Int. 2018;33:545–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mannocci A, D’Egidio V, Gualano MR, Guerra F, Mascagna F, De Marco Y et al. Which is the best communication strategy, based on anti-tobacco ads, to impress teenagers? A multicenter cross-sectional study. Ann Ig. 2021;33:86–99.

  20. WHO, RI KK, CDC. Lembar informasi GYTS Indonesia 2019; 2019. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/indonesia/indonesia-gyts-2019-factsheet-(ages-13-15)-(final)-indonesian-final.pdf?sfvrsn=b99e597b_2.

  21. MacMonegle AJ, Nonnemaker J, Duke JC, Farrelly MC, Zhao X, Delahanty JC, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the real cost campaign’s effect on smoking prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55:319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Colston DC, Cho B, Thrasher JF, Titus AR, Xie Y, Emery S, et al. Anti-smoking media campaigns and disparities in smoking cessation in the United States, 2001–2015. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35:658–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu J, Li J, He Y, Li N, Xu G, Yu J. The influence and interaction of exposure to pro-smoking and anti-smoking messaging on youth smoking behaviour and susceptibility. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17:86. https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/114066.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tupas FP, Agreda IV. How to stop before it starts: the case of an anti-smoking campaign for high schools in the Philippines. J Educ Soc Res. 2020;10:85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sadeghi R, Masoudi MR, Khanjani N. A systematic review about educational campaigns on smoking cessation. Open Public Health J. 2020;13:748–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. WHO. Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control. Geneva: WHO Press; 2008. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597340.

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control. How deadly is tobacco industry influence in Indonesia? 2021. https://globaltobaccoindex.org/country/ID. Accessed 4 Jan 2023.

  28. Prabandari YS, Dewi A. How do Indonesian youth perceive cigarette advertising? A cross-sectional study among Indonesian high school students. Glob Health Action. 2016;9:30914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sutrisno RY, Melinda F. The effects of cigarette advertisement and peer influence on adolescent’s smoking intention in Indonesia. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2021;9:291–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Laili K, Ratih SP, Gayatri RW, Adi S. The impact of exposure to cigarette advertising and promotion on youth smoking behavior in Malang Regency (Indonesia) during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Public Health Africa 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2022.2409.

  31. Ramadhan LI. Iklan Antirokok Kemenkes dari Kisah Nyata di Muara Angke. Tempo Media Gr; 2016. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/774674/iklan-antirokok-kemenkes-dari-kisah-nyata-di-muara-angke. Accessed 4 Nov 2022.

  32. RI DP dan PK. Suara Hati Anak Dari Korban Rokok; 2016. p. 1.

  33. Maharani D. Iklan Antirokok Terbaru Fokus Bahaya Rokok pada Organ. Jakarta: Kompas; 2016. p. 1.

  34. Rokok ST. Iklan Layanan Masyarakat - Bahaya Paparan Asap Rokok (Ibu Ike). Indonesia: YouTube; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  35. World Health Organization. MPOWER: a policy package to reverse the tobacco epidemic; 2008. http://www.who.int/blindness/AP2014_19_Russian.pdf?ua=1.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Efendi F, Aidah FN, Has EMM, Lindayani L, Reisenhofer S. Determinants of smoking behavior among young males in rural Indonesia. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2019-0040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vitória P, Pereira SE, Muinos G, De VH, Lima ML. Parents modelling, peer influence and peer selection impact on adolescent smoking behavior: a longitudinal study in two age cohorts. Addict Behav. 2020;100:106131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nurmansyah MI, Umniyatun Y, Jannah M, Syiroj ATR, Purnama TB, Koire II. Peer, family and teachers’ role on smoking behaviour among Islamic high school students in Depok, Indonesia. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2021;16:189–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Septiono W, Kuipers MAGMAG, Ng N, Kunst AEAE. Self-reported exposure of Indonesian adolescents to online and offline tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS). Tob Control. 2022;31:98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Levesque RJR. Adolescent smoking and the media. In: Levesque RJR, editor. Adolescents, media, and the law: what developmental science reveals and free speech requires. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Robertson L, Cameron C, McGee R, Marsh L, Hoek J. Point-of-sale tobacco promotion and youth smoking: a meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2016;25:e83 LP-e89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Madkour AS, Ledford EC, Andersen L, Johnson CC. Tobacco advertising/promotions and adolescents’ smoking risk in Northern Africa. Tob Control. 2014;23:244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Astuti PAS, Assunta M, Freeman B. Raising generation ‘A’: a case study of millennial tobacco company marketing in Indonesia. Tob Control. 2018;27:e41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hastanto I. Cigarette companies fuel the youth sports industry in Indonesia and Children’s Organisations are stopping it; 2019. p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  45. CDC. Health communication in tobacco prevention and control. CDC: Atlanta; 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/guides/pdfs/health-communications-508.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bayly, M Cotter, T and Carroll T. Examining the effectiveness of public education campaigns. Tob. Aust. Facts issues; 2019. https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-14-social-marketing/14-4-examining-effectiveness-of-public-education-c. Accessed 4 Nov 2022.

  47. Beasley S, Barker A, Murphy M, Roderick T, Carroll T. What makes an effective antismoking campaign – insights from the trenches. Public Heal Res Pract. https://www.phrp.com.au/issues/september-2020-volume-30-issue-3/what-makes-an-effective-antismoking-campaign/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This paper was funded by Universitas Airlangga International Research Collaboration Scheme 2021, Number 7502/UN3.1.10/PT/2021. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis/interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

    Hario Megatsari, Siti Rahayu Nadhiroh & Erni Astutik

  2. Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Hario Megatsari & Rita Damayanti

  3. Department of Health Services Research and Management, School of Health & Psychological Sciences, University of London, London, UK

    Dian Kusuma

  4. Indonesia National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Tati Suryati Warouw

  5. School of Health and Life Sciences, Universitas Airlangga, Banyuwangi, Indonesia

    Desak Made Sintha Kurnia Dewi & Susy Katikana Sebayang

Authors
  1. Hario Megatsari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita Damayanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dian Kusuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tati Suryati Warouw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Siti Rahayu Nadhiroh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erni Astutik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Desak Made Sintha Kurnia Dewi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Susy Katikana Sebayang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HM, RD, and DK developed the proposal, and analyzed and interpreted the data. HM, TS, SRN, EA, DMSKD, and SKS significantly contributed to the study, interpreting the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hario Megatsari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Indonesian 2019 GYTS has passed ethical clearance from the Health Research Ethics Commission, National Health Research and Development Agency, with notification number: LB.02.01/2/KE.315/2019. The authors delete all respondents’ identities from the dataset. Respondents have provided written approval for their involvement in the study through filling the informed concent. The author obtained the data from the CDC website: https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Megatsari, H., Damayanti, R., Kusuma, D. et al. The influence of anti-smoking messages to Indonesian youth smoking behavior: the Indonesian 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS). BMC Public Health 23, 907 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15830-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15830-5

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us