↓ Skip to main content

Drugs, Money, and Graphic Ads: A Critical Review of the Montana Meth Project

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 1,128)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Drugs, Money, and Graphic Ads: A Critical Review of the Montana Meth Project
Published in
Prevention Science, August 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11121-008-0098-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M. Erceg-Hurn

Abstract

The Montana Meth Project (MMP) is an organization that launched a large-scale methamphetamine prevention program in Montana in 2005. The central component of the program is a graphic advertising campaign that portrays methamphetamine users as unhygienic, dangerous, untrustworthy, and exploitive. Montana teenagers are exposed to the advertisements three to five times a week. The MMP, media and politicians have portrayed the advertising campaign as a resounding success that has dramatically increased anti-methamphetamine attitudes and reduced drug use in Montana. The program is currently being rolled out across the nation, and is receiving considerable public funding. This article critically reviews the evidence used by the MMP to claim that its advertising campaign is effective. The main finding is that empirical support for the campaign is weak. Claims that the campaign is effective are not supported by data. The campaign has been associated with increases in the acceptability of using methamphetamine and decreases in the perceived danger of using drugs. These and other negative findings have been ignored and misrepresented by the MMP. There is no evidence that reductions in methamphetamine use in Montana are caused by the advertising campaign. On the basis of current evidence, continued public funding and rollout of Montana-style methamphetamine programs is inadvisable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Unknown 67 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Professor 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 35%
Psychology 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#443,699
of 25,081,285 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#25
of 1,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#815
of 96,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,285 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.