AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (43)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sepe, E.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sepe, E.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
January 2002, Vol 92, No. 1 | American Journal of Public Health 75-78
© 2002 American Public Health Association

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Bar and Club Tobacco Promotions in the Alternative Press: Targeting Young Adults

Edward Sepe, MS and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

The authors are with the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0130, San Francisco, CA 94143-0130 (e-mail: glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu).


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 

Objectives. This study examined changes in tobacco promotions in the alternative press in San Francisco and Philadelphia from 1994 to 1999.

Methods. A random sample of alternative newspapers was analyzed, and a content analysis was conducted.

Results. Between 1994 and 1999, numbers of tobacco advertisements increased from 8 to 337 in San Francisco and from 8 to 351 in Philadelphia. Product advertisements represented only 45% to 50% of the total; the remaining advertisements were entertainment-focused promotions, mostly bar–club and event promotions.

Conclusions. The tobacco industry has increased its use of bars and clubs as promotional venues and has used the alternative press to reach the young adults who frequent these establishments. This increased targeting of young adults may be associated with an increase in smoking among this group.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
During the 1990s, bars and nightclubs became major promotional venues for the tobacco industry. Inside bars, patrons are exposed to a variety of advertisements, promotional items, and events, including logos on cocktail napkins, sale of cigarettes behind the bar, and sponsorship of live music events.1–7 These venues offer an agerestricted, young adult–focused environment where substance use (tobacco and alcohol) is legal and socially reinforced. Age restriction allows these promotional activities to continue with minimal criticism or surveillance from public health or tobacco control advocates because of public health's emphasis on smoking initiation among adolescents.8,9 This focus on adolescents ignores the fact that smoking initiation occurs over several periods, including young adulthood (the ages of 18 to 24 years).10–13

Young adulthood is an important time in the solidification of smoking patterns, because it is usually a period of transition from experimental smoking to nicotine addiction.11–13 Smoking patterns, including initiation, in young adults have not been static and are amenable to the influence of tobacco marketing. Indeed, smoking in this group has been increasing,14–16 with first-use rates approaching 8.6% in the mid-1990s.17

To quantify the changing role of tobacco product bar promotions, we examined the number and nature of tobacco industry–sponsored bar promotions advertised in the alternative press, which is heavily read by young adults.18–27 At the same time that the tobacco industry was increasing the use of bars as promotional venues, California implemented a law that required bars to be smoke free.28–30 To determine whether the presence of this law affected industry attempts to use bars as promotional venues, we compared bar-based tobacco promotions occurring in a city covered by the law (San Francisco) with those occurring in a similar city outside California where there were no restrictions on smoking in bars (Philadelphia). These 2 metropolitan areas have similar populations as well as similar percentages of young adults (ages 18–24 years) in their populations (8.6% in San Francisco and 8.4% in Philadelphia).


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
We selected a random sample of 15 issues per year for the same weeks from each of 2 prominent alternative weekly newspapers, the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the Philadelphia City Paper, between January 1994 and December 1999. The samples were obtained from the San Francisco and Philadelphia public libraries or from street corner newspaper racks.

All print advertisements were coded for general characteristics, including size, placement in the publication, and brand of cigarette, and then classified into one of 5 specific categories: bar promotion, event promotion, product advertisement, paraphernalia, or antismoking advertisement (Table 1Go describes these categories). The first author coded all of the samples.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1 —Descriptive Criteria for Classification of Tobacco Advertisements in the Alternative Press: San Francisco and Philadelphia, 1994–1999
 
Because random sampling resulted in an uneven distribution of samples from different quarters of each year, the individual samples were weighted by 13 (the number of weeks in a quarter), and divided by the number of issues in the sample in each quarter, and weighted frequencies (per quarter) were tabulated via the SPSS 8.0 and 9.0 frequencies and cross-tabulation functions (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). Chi-square analyses were used in comparisons between the 2 cities.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 References
 
The frequency of advertisements, regardless of category, increased dramatically over the 5-year period we studied (Figure 1Go). In 1994, the San Francisco Bay Guardian contained only 8 advertisements. By 1999, this number had increased to 337. The Philadelphia City Paper showed a similar trend, with 8 advertisements in 1994 and 351 advertisements in 1999. Increases were seen across all 5 categories of analysis. The patterns of increase between the cities over the 5-year period were significantly different when cross tabulated with respect to year and publication (P = .007). The most notable difference occurred in 1997, when tobacco promotions in the San Francisco Bay Guardian exceeded those in the Philadelphia City Paper.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1 —Changes in total advertisements over time: a comparison of the weighted frequencies of all tobacco advertisements recorded in a sample of the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the Philadelphia City Paper, 1994–1999.

 
The placement of advertisements also changed over time. In 1994 and 1995, no placement in entertainment sections was recorded. Beginning in 1996, the majority of advertisements were placed in the entertainment sections. In 1999, for example, advertisements in the San Francisco Bay Guardian were placed in entertainment sections 70% of the time; the corresponding rate for the Philadelphia City Paper was 65%.

Figure 2Go summarizes the proportions of advertisement types in each publication. Product advertisements were most frequent, but such advertisements represented only 50% of the total advertisements in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and 45% of the total advertisements in the Philadelphia City Paper. The remaining percentage of advertisements promoted sponsorship of bars or entertainment events.


Figure 2
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2 —Summary of promotional types as a percentage of total advertisements: San Francisco Bay Guardian (SFBG) and Philadelphia City Paper (CP), 1994–1999.

 
Bar and club promotions constituted 31% of the total advertisements analyzed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and 36% of the total advertisements analyzed in the Philadelphia City Paper (Figure 2Go). Bar–club promotions began to appear in 1996 in both publications, with similar characteristics over time (P = .766). After their first appearance, bar–club promotions increased at a rate similar to that for total number of advertisements, averaging between 30% and 40% of the total from late 1996 through 1999. Bar–club promotions were more likely than any other advertisement to be placed in entertainment sections of the publications. More than 80% of bar–club promotions were placed in entertainment sections in both publications (86% in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and 80% in the Philadelphia City Paper).

Event promotions represented 17% of the total advertisements analyzed. Promotional events were subcategorized on the basis of type of event, the venue where it took place, and the presence of corporate citizenship. The most popular events were live music performances, which represented 68% of total promotional events in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and 65% in the Philadelphia City Paper; the remaining events were mostly sponsored parties. While most of these events occurred in bars or nightclubs (55% in San Francisco and 73% in Philadelphia), events were held in other venues as well, including arenas and resorts.

Tobacco companies often used event promotions to improve their corporate image. In many cases, this meant that a charitable donation would be made from the proceeds of the promotional event. Sixteen percent of the events in San Francisco and 23% in Philadelphia promoted a positive corporate image via charitable donations.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
References
 
Our results indicate that the tobacco industry is increasing its use of bar and club venues in tobacco promotions aimed at young adults. This new strategy involves the use of entertainment to enhance industry promotions. The industry is using the alternative press, a medium that not only involves a heavy entertainment focus but also depends on young adults as a significant portion of its audience.18–27 Entertainment has been stressed in every detail of this new strategy. New types of advertisements have emerged that focus on entertainment venues (e.g., bars and clubs) or entertainment events (e.g., live music and sponsored parties). These advertisements are placed in parts of the publication that have the highest focus on entertainment, thereby increasing their visibility among young adult readers.

The tobacco industry appears to be successful in reaching this target audience of young adults aged 18 to 24 years. Members of this age group continue to be vulnerable to marketing of tobacco, because many of them are in the later stages of smoking initiation and, as a result, are still in the process of solidifying their addiction to tobacco.11,12 Young adults are not immune to "late" initiation of smoking (i.e., smoking their first cigarettes after the age of 18 years or 21 years). In the past, and among different ethnic groups, first use has been shown to occur after adolescence.31–39 Directed marketing toward young adults in social settings such as bars and nightclubs may raise the age at initiation toward what it was in the past. Current increases in young adult smoking, in terms of both overall prevalence and first use, suggest that this directed marketing is having an impact.14–16

This new marketing strategy may also have a political motivation. The patterns of development of this advertising in the 2 study cities, while generally similar, exhibited some differences. The main difference occurred in 1997, when the number of advertisements in the San Francisco Bay Guardian exceeded those in the Philadelphia City Paper by a weighted total of 47. This more intensive advertising in San Francisco may have been part of the tobacco industry's effort to counter the effects of California's smoke-free bar law, which was scheduled to go into effect in California in January 1998.30

The presence of these promotions in other states may help to impede the passage of smoke-free bar laws or create compliance problems. Similar studies that have quantified the emergence of bars as promotional venues may help to clarify any political motivations.40 In any event, the presence of the smoke-free bar law in California did not inhibit the tobacco industry's use of bars as promotional venues in San Francisco relative to Philadelphia.

During the decade of the 1990s, the public health community concentrated on making it politically difficult for the tobacco industry to target children, in the hope that if children did not begin to smoke before reaching the age of 18 years, they would never smoke. The tobacco industry appears to have responded to this situation by increasing its promotional efforts targeted to young adults. These efforts appear to be bearing fruit; smoking rates are increasing in this age group.14–16 It would be unfortunate if one result of the concentration on youth smoking of the past decade were simply that more people are smoking in young adulthood. The public health community needs to rethink its tobacco prevention strategies to account for these new industry strategies.


   Acknowledgments
 
This work was supported by grant CA-61021 from the National Cancer Institute.

We thank Mamiko Hada for assistance in data collection.


   Footnotes
 
Both authors participated in formulating the study, conducting the analysis, and writing and revising the manuscript. E. Sepe collected and coded the data.

Peer Reviewed

Accepted for publication December 13, 2000.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
1. Solomon C. Tobacco companies bankroll their own. Seattle Times. December 10, 1997:A1.

2. Scholtes PS. You're not invited. City Pages [serial online]. September 22, 1999.

3. Hwang SL. Tobacco companies enlist the bar owner to push their goods. Wall Street Journal. April 21, 1999:A1, A6.

4. Graham C. Tobacco companies heating up the nightclub scene. St. Petersburg Times. August 16, 1998:H1.

5. Gellene D. Joining the clubs: tobacco firms find a venue in bars. Los Angeles Times. September 25, 1997:D1, D3.

6. Davis HL. A party to die for? Buffalo News. July 27, 1998:A4–A5.

7. Carreon C. Joe Camel turns up in Portland nightclubs. The Oregonian [serial online]. July 31, 1998.

8. Glantz SA. Preventing tobacco use: the youth access trap. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:156–158.[Free Full Text]

9. Levy D, Cummings K, Hyland A. A simulation of the effects of youth initiation policies on overall cigarette usage. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1311–1314.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Choi WS. Which adolescent experimenters progress to established smoking in the United States? Am J Prev Med. 1997;13:385–391.[Medline]

11. Flay BR, d'Avernas JR, Best JA, Kersell MW, Ryan KB. Cigarette smoking: why young people do it and ways of preventing it. Pediatr Adolesc Behav Med. 1983;10:132–183.

12. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1994.

13. Sepe E, Ling P, Glantz S. Smooth moves: the targeting of young adults by the tobacco industry's bar and nightclub promotions Am J Public Health. In press.

14. Ehlinger EP. Boynton Health Service Announces Sharp Rise in Tobacco Use in University of Minnesota Students [press release]. Minneapolis: School of Public Health, University of Minnesota; 1999.

15. Emmons KM, Wechsler H, Dowdall G, Abraham M. Predictors of smoking among US college students. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:104–107.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Wechsler H, Rigotti NA, Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H. Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: a cause for national concern. JAMA. 1998;280:1673–1678.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. US Dept of Health and Human Services. Incidence of initiation of cigarette smoking—United States, 1965–1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998;47:837–840.[Medline]

18. Wizda S. Consider the alternative. Am Journalism Rev. November 1998:44.

19. Stein ML. Who's copying whom? (alternative papers believe mainstream papers are becoming more like them). Editor Publisher. 1998;131(8):3.

20. Schnuer J. Older generations just don't get alternative lure. Advertising Age. April 20, 1998:S20.

21. Pollack J. Number of small publications continues to increase locally. St. Louis Journalism Rev. 1998;28:7.

22. Mollenkamp B. Alternative press goes corporate. St. Louis Journalism Rev. 1997;28:2.

23. Giman W. Alternatives making inroads: consolidation among alternative newspapers is making them more than just a nuisance to many mainstream dailies in the battle for national ad dollars. Editor Publisher. 1997;130(22):3.

24. Giman W. "Sexier" and better looking: Association of Alternative Newsweeklies panelists say dailies are losing ground to their better packaged, more colorful weekly competitors. Editor Publisher. 1997;130(30):2.

25. Bates E. Chaining the alternatives. Nation. 1998;266:11.

26. Ardits SC. The alternative press: newsweeklies and zines. Database. 1999;22(3):15.

27. Alternative capitalism. Maclean'. February 23, 1998:13.

28. Macdonald HR, Glantz SA. The political realities of statewide smoking legislation. Tob Control. 1997;6:41–54.[Abstract]

29. Magzamen SG. Turning the Tide: Tobacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making in California 1997–1999. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco; 1999. Available at: http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ca9799. Accessed October 16, 2001.

30. Magzamen S, Glantz SA. The new battleground: California's experience with smoke-free bars. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:245–252.[Abstract]

31. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census; 2000.

32. Gilpin EA, Lee L, Evans N, Pierce JP. Smoking initiation rates in adults and minors: United States, 1944–1988. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:535–543.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33. Burns D, Lee L, Vaughn J, Chiu Y, Shopland D. Rates of smoking initiation among adolescents and young adults, 1907–81. Tob Control. 1995;4(suppl 1):S2–S8.

34. Novotny TE, Warner KE, Kendrick JS, Remington PL. Smoking by blacks and whites: socioeconomic and demographic differences. Am J Public Health. 1988;78:1187–1189.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

35. Differences in the age of smoking initiation between blacks and whites—United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991;40:754–757.[Medline]

36. Giovino GA, Henningfield JE, Tomar SL, Escobedo LG, Slade J. Epidemiology of tobacco use and dependence. Epidemiol Rev. 1995;17:48–65.[Free Full Text]

37. Giovino GA, Schooley MW, Zhu BP, et al. Surveillance for selected tobacco-use behaviors—United States, 1900–1994. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1994;43(3):1–43.[Medline]

38. Escobedo LG, Anda RF, Smith PF, Remington PL, Mast EE. Sociodemographic characteristics of cigarette smoking initiation in the United States: implications for smoking prevention policy. JAMA. 1990;264:1550–1555.[Abstract]

39. Bauman K, Ennett S. Tobacco use by black adolescents: the validity of self-reports. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:394–398.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

40. Cruz T, Weiner M, Schuster D, Unger J. Growth of tobacco-sponsored bars and clubs from 1996–2000. Paper presented at: 128th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association; November 12–16, 2000; Boston, Mass.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
F. A. Stillman, L. Bone, E. Avila-Tang, K. Smith, N. Yancey, C. Street, and K. Owings
Barriers to Smoking Cessation in Inner-City African American Young Adults
Am J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 97(8): 1405 - 1408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
M. P. Green, K. L. McCausland, H. Xiao, J. C. Duke, D. M. Vallone, and C. G. Healton
A Closer Look at Smoking Among Young Adults: Where Tobacco Control Should Focus Its Attention
Am J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 97(8): 1427 - 1433.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
D. E. Apollonio and L. A. Bero
The Creation of Industry Front Groups: The Tobacco Industry and "Get Government Off Our Back"
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2007; 97(3): 419 - 427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
G Jalleh, R J Donovan, S Stewart, and D Sullivan
Selling or promotion?
Tob. Control, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 430 - 430.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
B A Toll and P M Ling
The Virginia Slims identity crisis: an inside look at tobacco industry marketing to women
Tob. Control, June 1, 2005; 14(3): 172 - 180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
D Hammond
Smoking behaviour among young adults: beyond youth prevention
Tob. Control, June 1, 2005; 14(3): 181 - 185.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
D Hammond, I Tremblay, M Chaiton, E Lessard, C Callard, and the Tobacco on Campus Workgroup
Tobacco on campus: industry marketing and tobacco control policy among post-secondary institutions in Canada
Tob. Control, April 1, 2005; 14(2): 136 - 140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
F A Sloan, C A Mathews, and J G Trogdon
Impacts of the Master Settlement Agreement on the tobacco industry
Tob. Control, December 1, 2004; 13(4): 356 - 361.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
L Biener, A L Nyman, R L Kline, and A B Albers
Adults only: the prevalence of tobacco promotions in bars and clubs in the Boston area
Tob. Control, December 1, 2004; 13(4): 403 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
J Knight and S Chapman
"Asian yuppies...are always looking for something new and different": creating a tobacco culture among young Asians
Tob. Control, December 1, 2004; 13(suppl_2): ii22 - ii29.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
S. Moran, H. Wechsler, and N. A. Rigotti
Social Smoking Among US College Students
Pediatrics, October 1, 2004; 114(4): 1028 - 1034.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
E M Barbeau, A Leavy-Sperounis, and E D Balbach
Smoking, social class, and gender: what can public health learn from the tobacco industry about disparities in smoking?
Tob. Control, June 1, 2004; 13(2): 115 - 120.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
L. Biener and A. B. Albers
Young Adults: Vulnerable New Targets of Tobacco Marketing
Am J Public Health, February 1, 2004; 94(2): 326 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
P M Lantz
Smoking on the rise among young adults: implications for research and policy
Tob. Control, June 1, 2003; 12(90001): i60 - 70.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
L Trotter, M Wakefield, and R Borland
Socially cued smoking in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues: a case for introducing smoke-free policies
Tob. Control, December 1, 2002; 11(4): 300 - 304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
L Henriksen and S P Fortmann
Young adults' opinions of Philip Morris and its television advertising
Tob. Control, September 1, 2002; 11(3): 236 - 240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
P. M. Ling and S. A. Glantz
Using Tobacco-Industry Marketing Research to Design More Effective Tobacco-Control Campaigns
JAMA, June 12, 2002; 287(22): 2983 - 2989.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
K. E. Warner
What's a Cigarette Company to Do?
Am J Public Health, June 1, 2002; 92(6): 897 - 900.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
P. M. Ling and S. A. Glantz
Why and How the Tobacco Industry Sells Cigarettes to Young Adults: Evidence From Industry Documents
Am J Public Health, June 1, 2002; 92(6): 908 - 916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
E. Sepe, P. M. Ling, and S. A. Glantz
Smooth Moves: Bar and Nightclub Tobacco Promotions That Target Young Adults
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2002; 92(3): 414 - 419.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (43)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sepe, E.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sepe, E.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Public Health Association