Recent manuscripts
Archive
Editorial Board
Aims and Scope
Open Access
Indexing
Contact us
Authorship & COI
Principles of Transparency Checklist
Publication Ethics
Crossmark
Data Policies
Supporting Diversity
Instructions to authors (PDF)
Manuscript Types
Manuscript Formatting
How to submit
Special Publications & Reprints
Preprints
RESEARCH PAPER
Correlates of smoking among youth: the role of parents, friends, attitudes/beliefs, and demographics
1
Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, USA
2
Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, USA
3
Florida State University, College of Social Sciences, Vero Beach, USA
4
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, USA
Submission date: 2014-09-29
Acceptance date: 2016-03-16
Publication date: 2016-03-24
Corresponding author
Noella A. Dietz
Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, 9th Floor C202, Miami, FL 33136, USA
Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, 9th Floor C202, Miami, FL 33136, USA
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2016;14(March):9
KEYWORDS
smoking initiationfamily engagement and tobacco useparental monitoring and tobacco useyouth susceptibility to smoke
ABSTRACT
Background:
Family engagement has been shown to play a crucial role in youth cigarette use prevention and uptake. We examine cross-sectional and longitudinal data to determine whether changes in parental monitoring factors influence changes in smoking susceptibility.
Methods:
Two cross-sectional surveys of Florida youth (12–17 years) were conducted in 2009, with a follow-up survey in 2010. Multivariable analyses examined demographics, parent characteristics, family engagement, and parental monitoring on youth susceptibility to smoke.
Results:
Cross-sectional data show eating together 6+ times/week and doing something for fun 5+ times/week were related to an increased likelihood of Very Low and decreased likelihood of High susceptibility, respectively. Parental monitoring factors and parents tell on a friend who smokes was significantly related to having Very Low susceptibility in both surveys. Mother’s education, parent smokes, family engagement factors, and parental monitoring were significant in both survey rounds. Longitudinal analyses showed change in eating together did not significantly affect the odds of change in smoking susceptibility; however, change in the frequency of doing things for fun with a parent showed decreased odds of susceptibility (OR = .63 [.49–.82]), opposite of the hypothesized direction. Lastly, as youth aged, they were more likely to experience a greater odds of decreased susceptibility (OR14-15y = 1.47 [1.08–1.99] and OR≥16y = 1.40 [1.05–1.84], respectively) and less likely to experience an increased odds of susceptibility (OR14-15y = .65 [.49–.86] and OR≥16y = .72 [.56–.93], respectively).
Conclusions:
We found mixed results for family engagement and parental monitoring on changes in youth smoking susceptibility. Cross-sectional data showed general associations in the expected direction; however, longitudinal analyses showed family engagement variables had significance, but in the opposite hypothesized direction.
Family engagement has been shown to play a crucial role in youth cigarette use prevention and uptake. We examine cross-sectional and longitudinal data to determine whether changes in parental monitoring factors influence changes in smoking susceptibility.
Methods:
Two cross-sectional surveys of Florida youth (12–17 years) were conducted in 2009, with a follow-up survey in 2010. Multivariable analyses examined demographics, parent characteristics, family engagement, and parental monitoring on youth susceptibility to smoke.
Results:
Cross-sectional data show eating together 6+ times/week and doing something for fun 5+ times/week were related to an increased likelihood of Very Low and decreased likelihood of High susceptibility, respectively. Parental monitoring factors and parents tell on a friend who smokes was significantly related to having Very Low susceptibility in both surveys. Mother’s education, parent smokes, family engagement factors, and parental monitoring were significant in both survey rounds. Longitudinal analyses showed change in eating together did not significantly affect the odds of change in smoking susceptibility; however, change in the frequency of doing things for fun with a parent showed decreased odds of susceptibility (OR = .63 [.49–.82]), opposite of the hypothesized direction. Lastly, as youth aged, they were more likely to experience a greater odds of decreased susceptibility (OR14-15y = 1.47 [1.08–1.99] and OR≥16y = 1.40 [1.05–1.84], respectively) and less likely to experience an increased odds of susceptibility (OR14-15y = .65 [.49–.86] and OR≥16y = .72 [.56–.93], respectively).
Conclusions:
We found mixed results for family engagement and parental monitoring on changes in youth smoking susceptibility. Cross-sectional data showed general associations in the expected direction; however, longitudinal analyses showed family engagement variables had significance, but in the opposite hypothesized direction.
REFERENCES (20)
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2009. MMWR. 2010;59(SS-5):1–142.
2.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The Importance of Family Dinners VII. September 2011. http://www.centeronaddiction.o.... Accessed 20 Jan 2014.
3.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The Importance of Family Dinners VIII: A CASA Columbia White Paper. September 2012. http://www.centeronaddiction.o.... Accessed 20 Jan 2014.
4.
Johnson TD. Report: teens Who often Eat dinner with family less likely to drink, smoke, or use drugs. Nations Health. 2011;41(9):e46.
5.
Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, Bauman KE, Harris KM, Jones J, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. JAMA. 1997;278(10):823–32.
6.
Chassin L, Presson CC, Rose J, Sherman SJ, Davis MJ, Gonzalez JL. Parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices as predictors of adolescent smoking onset. J Pediatr Psychol. 2005;30(4):333–44.
7.
Cleveland MJ, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Pomery EA, Brody GH. The impact of parenting on risk cognitions and risk behavior: a study of mediation and moderation in a panel of African American adolescents. Child Dev. 2005;76(4):900–16.
8.
Panagiota K, Moore TW, Sly DF. Using classification trees to profile adolescent smoking behaviors. Addict Behav. 2007;32:9–23.
9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Designing and Implementing an Effective Tobacco Counter-Marketing Campaign. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health; 2003.
10.
Dietz NA, Westphal L, Arheart K, Lee DJ, Huang Y, Sly DF, et al. Changes in youth current cigarette use following the dismantling of an anti-tobacco media campaign in Florida. Prev Chron Dis. 2010;7(3):1–4.
11.
Sly DF, Arheart K, Dietz N, Trapido EJ, Nelson D, Rodriguez R, et al. The outcome consequences of defunding the Minnesota youth tobacco-use prevention program. Prev Med. 2005;41:503–10.
12.
Sly DF, Arheart K, Dietz N, Borgen C, Trapido E, Nelson D, et al. Effect of ending an anti-tobacco youth campaign on adolescent susceptibility to cigarette smoking – Minnesota 2003–2003. MMWR. 2004;53(14):301–4.
13.
Peterson Jr AV, Leroux BG, Bricker J, Kealey KA, Marek PM, Sarason IG, et al. Nine-year prediction of adolescent smoking by number of smoking parents. Addict Behav. 2006;31(5):788–801.
14.
Chassin L, Presson C, Seo DC, Sherman SJ, Macy J, Wirth RJ, et al. Multiple trajectories of cigarette smoking and the intergenerational transmission of smoking: a multigenerational, longitudinal study of a Midwestern community sample. Health Psychol. 2008;27(6):819–28.
15.
Mowery PD, Farrelly MC, Haviland ML, Gable JM, Wells HE. Progression to established smoking among US youth. AJPH. 2004;94(2):331–7.
16.
Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the dose effects of an anti-tobacco counteradvertising campaign. Prev Med. 2002;35:511–8.
17.
Dietz NA, Sly DF, Lee DJ, Arheart KL, McClure LA. Correlates of smoking among young adults: the role of lifestyle, attitudes/beliefs, demographics, and exposure to anti-tobacco media messaging. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;130(1–3):115–21.
18.
Sly DF, Heald G, Ray S. The Florida youth anti-tobacco evaluation: design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations. Tob Control. 2001;10:9–15.
19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2000–2009. MMWR. 2010;59(33):1063–8.
20.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention Initiation of Tobacco Use: Outcome Indicators for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health; 2014.
CITATIONS (1):
1.
Kesejahteraan Psikologi (Psychological Well Being) Anak di Kabupaten Blora yang Ditinggal Ibunya sebagai Tenaga Kerja Indonesia
Restika Nugraheni
Jurnal Ilmiah Bimbingan Konseling Undiksha
Restika Nugraheni
Jurnal Ilmiah Bimbingan Konseling Undiksha
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1617-9625 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
