4.5 Article

Longitudinal Examination of Predictors of Smoking Cessation in a National Sample of US Adolescent and Young Adult Smokers

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 820-827

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu005

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To better inform the development of smoking cessation programs for adolescents and young adults, a prospective study was employed to systematically examine behavioral, demographic, health, and psychosocial determinants of smoking cessation. Data from the 2003-2005 National Youth Smoking Cessation Survey were used. Of 2,582 smokers aged 16-24 years sampled, 1,354 provided complete baseline telephone interview data on the study variables, and their self-reported smoking status at 2-year follow-up was known (currently smoking vs. not smoking). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to examine independent predictors of smoking status (outcome variable) at the 2-year follow-up period. Four of 5 participants remained smokers after 2 years. Of the high nicotine dependence smokers, 90% remained smokers at follow-up; of the low nicotine dependence smokers, 77% remained smokers at follow-up. Higher nicotine dependence smokers started smoking earlier in life (13.2 vs. 14.3 years; p < .05). Similarly, those not smoking at the 2-year follow-up period started smoking later in life than those still smoking (14.5 vs. 13.7 years). Along with nicotine dependence, various psychosocial and demographic variables at baseline predicted smoking status at the 2-year follow-up period. Identifiable demographic and psychosocial factors influence smoking behavior among U.S. adolescents and young adults. Even low nicotine dependence is a strong predictor of follow-up smoking behavior. This, coupled with the early smoking age of high nicotine dependence smokers, underscores the importance of early nicotine avoidance among youth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available