4.6 Article

Early childhood misbehavior and the estimated risk of becoming tobacco-dependent

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 160, Issue 2, Pages 126-130

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh184

Keywords

behavior; child; cohort studies; longitudinal studies; risk; smoking; tobacco use disorder

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA16279, K01 DA016279-01, R01 DA009897, R01 DA004392, DA09897, K05 DA015799, K01 DA016279] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH38725] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the authors focused on signs of early childhood misbehavior that might be linked to the risk of becoming tobacco-dependent. Standardized teacher ratings of misbehavior were obtained for an epidemiologic sample of first graders entering an urban mid-Atlantic public school system in 1985 and 1986. Fifteen years later, 1,692 of the students were reassessed (nearly 75% of the original sample). As adults, 962 participants indicated that they had tried tobacco at least once; 66% of the 962 had become daily users. Latent class analysis of items on the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence gave evidence of three classes pertinent to tobacco dependence syndrome in smokers by young adulthood: one nondependent class of smokers (50% of smokers), a class of smokers experiencing a moderate number of dependence features (31%), and a third class that was more severely affected (19%), as manifest in the need to smoke immediately after waking and smoking when ill. With or without adjustment for covariates, higher levels of teacher-rated childhood misbehavior at entry into primary school were associated with a modest excess risk of becoming tobacco-dependent by young adulthood (risk ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 2.5). Interventions that seek to improve childhood behavior might reduce early onset tobacco smoking and risk of tobacco dependence among smokers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available