4.7 Article

Rapid progression to regular cigarette smoking among nonsmoking adolescents: interactions with gender and ethnicity

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 455-463

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0091-7435(02)00041-5

Keywords

smoking; adolescence; longitudinal studies; school-based research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. While the correlates and predictors associated with transition through the stages of smoking acquisition have received substantial attention, the identification of factors associated with the time course of progression remain generally unexplored. Methods. We identified adolescents escalating from nonsmoking to regular smoking in I year as rapid progressors (11 = 98) and those escalating from nonsmoking to experimental smoking in 1 year as slow progressors (n = 555). We entered demographic and psychosocial variables, initial reactions to smoking variables, and their interactions with gender and ethnicity into a logistic regression analysis comparing rapid progressors to slow progressors. Results. At baseline, rapid progressors reported more friends who smoked regularly. Girls who reported more concern with dieting and less social success were more likely to progress to regular smoking within I year; these variables did not influence progression in boys. Those who associated positive feelings with their initial smoking experience were more likely to progress to regular smoking. Differences between white and African American youth emphasize the importance of physiological interpretations of initial smoking experiences. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that even as nonsmokers, adolescents likely to progress quickly to regular smoking can be identified. Researchers designing prevention programs should take these factors into account. (C) 2003 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available