4.4 Article

Developmental trajectories of cigarette use from early adolescence into young adulthood

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 167-178

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0376-8716(01)00159-4

关键词

cigarette smoking; tobacco use; trajectories; risk factors; transitions; sex differences

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA003395] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [DA/AA-03395] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified developmental trajectories of cigarette smoking from early adolescence into young adulthood, and delineated whether risk factors derived from a social learning-problem behavior framework could differentiate among trajectories. Participants (N = 374) were interviewed five times from age 12 until age 30/31. Using growth mixture modeling, three trajectory groups were identified - heavy/regular, occasional/maturing out, and non/experimental smokers. Being a female, having higher disinhibition, receiving lower grades, and more frequent use of alcohol or drugs significantly increased the probability of belonging to a smoking trajectory group compared with being a nonsmoker. Higher disinhibition and receiving lower grades also differentiated regular smokers from the rest of the sample, None of the risk factors distinguished occasional from regular smokers. When models were tested separately by sex, disinhibition, other drug use, and school grades were associated with smoking for both sexes. On the other hand, environmental factors, including socioeconomic status, parent smoking and friend smoking, were related to smoking for females but not for males. Sex differences in developmental trajectories and in smoking behavior among regular smokers were notable. Future research should examine transitions and turning points from adolescence to adulthood that may affect cessation and escalation differently for males and females. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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