4.2 Article

Predicting cigarette initiation and reinitiation among active duty United States Air Force recruits

期刊

SUBSTANCE ABUSE
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 340-343

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1577678

关键词

Military personnel; prevention; smoking; tobacco use

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA037273, R01 DA036510] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The first year of military service in the United States Air Force (USAF) is a high-risk time for tobacco use. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of a tobacco ban during Basic Military Training (BMT). However, no studies have examined the effect of increasing the protracted ban for an additional 4 weeks. Understanding the patterns of initiation and reinitiation following the protracted ban will inform future intervention and policy efforts. Methods: The current study examines patterns of cigarette smoking among a sample of 2188 USAF personnel at baseline and after their first year of service. Results: One year after BMT, we observed that 65.0% of USAF enlistees remained never smokers, 9.6% remained abstinence from cigarettes, 9.3% initiated cigarette smoking, and 16.1% reinitiated cigarette smoking. Despite the extended tobacco ban in BMT and Technical Training, 12.6% of individual who never smoked initiated cigarette smoking and 62.6% of individuals who formerly smoked reinitiated. Over half (54.2%) of Airmen who reported smoking cigarettes at follow-up reported initiating or reinitiating during Technical Training. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that although the increased ban prevents additional individuals who smoked cigarettes prior to joining the Air Force from reinitiating, it has no effect on initiation among individuals who report never using prior to military service. Additional research is needed to understand what may be leading to these high rates of initiation and reinitiation in Technical Training following the ban.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据