Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States.

Pierce, James C.; Choi, Won Sik; Gilpin, Elizabeth A.; Farkas, Arthur J.; Merritt, Robert

doi:10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.355

Cited by 928 publications

(887 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

857

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, to increase the power of our analyses we combined data for large and small retailers. Our findings are all based on self‐reported exposure and outcome data, and hence relatively open to error and bias; however, where possible we used measures that have previously been widely used and validated 10, 13, 27. Objective validation of exposure and outcome data was not feasible with the time and resources available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most smokers take up smoking during adolescence. Susceptibility to smoking, defined as absence of a firm decision not to smoke 12, has been shown to be a strong marker of experimentation with and uptake of smoking among adolescents 13, 14. There is also evidence that exposure to tobacco advertising increases susceptibility to smoking 12, and therefore potentially smoking uptake.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exposure to point‐of‐sale displays and changes in susceptibility to smoking: findings from a cohort study of school students

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo investigate the association between frequency of visiting shops and noticing of tobacco point‐of‐sale (PoS) displays and the development of susceptibility to smoking, or smoking uptake, in secondary school students.DesignTwo surveys of a school based cohort study carried out in 2011 and 2012.SettingsNottinghamshire, UK.ParticipantsA total of 2270 children aged 11–16 years from eight schools in Nottinghamshire.MeasurementsWe investigated changes in susceptibility to smoking and smoking status in relation to frequency of visiting shops and noticing PoS displays and number of tobacco brands recognized, controlling for a range of potential confounders. Susceptibility to smoking was defined using a set of three questions covering intentions to try smoking, to smoke within the next year and likelihood of smoking if a best friend offered a cigarette. For the analysis we used multinomial logistic regression.FindingsAmong non‐susceptible never smokers, noticing PoS displays more frequently was associated independently with an increased risk of becoming susceptible to smoking [adjusted relative risk ratio (RRR) = 1.74; 99% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13–2.69], but was not associated with smoking uptake. Recognizing a higher number of brands among non‐susceptible never smokers doubled the risk of becoming susceptible to smoking and of becoming a smoker, but this did not have a significant effect on transition to smoking among susceptible never smokers. Frequency of noticing tobacco PoS displays was not associated significantly with smoking uptake among those who were susceptible never smokers at baseline.ConclusionsNoticing tobacco point‐of‐sale displays more often and recognizing a higher number of tobacco brands is associated with an increased risk of becoming susceptible to smoking among adolescents in the United Kingdom, and recognizing a higher number of brands is associated positively with an increased risk of smoking uptake.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to point‐of‐sale displays and changes in susceptibility to smoking: findings from a cohort study of school students

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The few published studies generally divide nonusers into two subcategories, which we have termed resolute and vulnerable (Crano et al 2007), although specific terminology varies (Anderson et al 2002;Pierce et al 1996). Vulnerable nonusers have not used the substance, but are expected to do so.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In research on tobacco, participants usually are asked a series of questions about smoking intentions. Those answering "definitely no" to all intent items are considered resolute, and are predicted not to initiate use; those who respond in any other way are considered vulnerable (Pierce et al 1996). The predictive validity of this measurement approach has not been tested in research on marijuana, and would seem a necessary first step in developing evidence-based prevention approaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The At-risk Adolescent Marijuana Nonuser: Expanding the Standard Distinction

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research expands the user/nonuser dichotomy commonly used in research on marijuana. By conceptualizing nonusers as homogeneous, vital nuances in susceptibility to risk and protective factors may be overlooked. Research operations tested the predictive validity of a brief measure that divided nonusers into resolute and vulnerable subcategories; determined whether variables that distinguished nonusers and users were more informative when a tripartite classification was used; and with an eye on future prevention, examined variables on which resolute nonusers were similar to vulnerable nonusers or users, and on which they differed from both. A nationally representative sample of respondents (N=2,111; ages 12−16 years) from the National Survey of Parents and Youth was used in this secondary analysis. Panel data gathered yearly over four rounds included information on intentions and use of marijuana and other illicit substances, along with social, demographic, intrapersonal, and parental variables. The three groups differed significantly on associates' marijuana use, participants' approval of others' use, and cigarette and alcohol use. Resolute nonusers differed from vulnerable nonusers and users alike on religiosity, delinquency (self and friends'), refusal strength, sensation seeking, parental monitoring and warmth, and adult supervision. Results support the utility of distinguishing vulnerable from resolute nonusers, counsel against considering nonusers as a homogeneous group, and provide insight into variables that might prove useful in future prevention efforts. KeywordsMarijuana usage; Risk taking; Adolescent attitudes; Drug initiation; Drug abuse; Risk factors; Secondary analysis; Vulnerability Despite massive public expenditures to curtail its adoption, marijuana remains the illicit drug most widely used by adolescents in the United States (Johnston et al. 2006). Consequences of marijuana use include increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases (Boyer et al. 1999), problems at school (Lynskey and Hall 2000), motor vehicle accidents (Smiley 1999), and lung and bronchial cancers (Sidney et al. 1997). The most common substance reported in adolescents' emergency department admissions (Office of Applied Studies 2000), marijuana can impair adolescent development (Hall and Solowij 1998); heavy usage can attenuate learning and mental flexibility (Lundqvist 2005), and may precipitate psychosis and schizophrenia in vulnerable youth (Ferdinand et al. 2005;Hall 1998;Smit et al. 2004). These stark findings clearly counsel prevention. To maximize scarce resources, youth most vulnerable to marijuana initiation must be identified (Crano and Burgoon 2002;Kosterman et al. 2000). Early marijuana risk research traditionally focused on differences between users and nonusers. Later studies explored differences among users (Jessor and Jessor 1977;Kandel et al. 1992), a reasonable tactic if the research is concerned with treatment variations; but if prevention is central, then factors that identify differences among n...

show abstract

“…Data from California showed that risk based on both experimentation and willingness to consider smoking in the future may be applicable in low and middle-income countries [15]. Studies from South Africa and Argentina reveal the contributions of regional tobacco use patterns.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%