Social norms as a predictor of smoking uptake among youth: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of prospective cohort studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Social norms towards smoking are a key concept in tobacco control policy and research. However, the influence and strength of different types of social norms on youth smoking uptake is unclear. This study aimed to examine, quantify and compare evidence of the longitudinal associations between different types of social norms towards smoking and youth smoking uptake (initiation and escalation). METHODS: Systematic review searching four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL) from January 1998 to October 2020. Evidence synthesis via narrative review, meta-analysis pooling unadjusted associations (initiation only, due to heterogeneity in escalation outcomes) and meta-regression comparing effect sizes by norm type and study characteristics. Studies included observational prospective cohort studies using survey methodology with youth aged ≤24 years. Measurements included longitudinal associations between descriptive norms (perceived smoking behaviour) and injunctive norms (perceived approval/disapproval of smoking) among social network(s) and subsequent smoking initiation or escalation. RESULTS: Thirty articles were identified. In the narrative review, smoking initiation (but not escalation) was consistently predicted by two norms: parental and close friend smoking. Associations between smoking uptake and other descriptive norms (smoking among siblings, family/household, partner, peers, adults) and all injunctive norms (perceived approval of smoking among parents, siblings, close friends/peers, partner, teachers, people important to you, the public) were less consistent or inconclusive. In the meta-analysis pooling unadjusted associations, 17 articles were included (n = 27 767). Smoking initiation was predicted by the following descriptive norms: smoking among parents [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.88, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.56-2.28], close friends (OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.99-3.23), siblings (OR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.93-3.08), family/household (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.36-1.76) and adults (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.02-1.75), but not peers (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.92-1.42). Smoking initiation was also predicted by two injunctive norms, perceived approval of smoking among parents (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.27-2.38) and the public (OR = 4.57, 95% CI = 3.21-6.49), but not close friends/peers (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 0.86-6.53) or people important to the individual (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.98-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review (narrative and meta-analysis), descriptive norms of parents' and close friends' smoking behaviour appeared to be consistent predictors of youth smoking initiation, more so than the descriptive norms of more distal social networks and injunctive norms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».