4.7 Article

The role of smoking in social networks on smoking cessation and relapse among adults: A longitudinal study

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 105-110

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the spread of smoking cessation and relapse within social networks may offer new approaches to further curb the smoking epidemic. Whether smoking behavior among social network members determines smoking cessation and relapse of adults however, is less known. For this study, longitudinal data of 4623 adults participating in the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences (LISS) panel were collected in March 2013 with a follow-up in 2014. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between the proportion of smokers in social networks, and (1) smoking cessation (n = 762) and (2) smoking relapse (n = 1905). Analyses were adjusted for the size of the network, age, sex, and education. Respondents with the largest proportion of smokers in their social network were less likely to quit smoking (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.11-0.66) and more likely to experience a relapse (6.08; 3.01-12.00). Smoking cessation and relapse were most strongly associated with the proportion of smokers among household members and friends. The proportion of smokers in family outside the household was not related to smoking cessation and smoking relapse. In conclusion, smoking behavior in social networks, especially among household members and friends, is strongly associated with smoking cessation and relapse. These findings further support the spread of smoking within social networks, and provide evidence for network-based interventions, particularly including household members and friends. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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