Risk Perception and Knowledge Following a Social Game–Based Tobacco Prevention Program for Adolescents: Pilot Randomized Comparative Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a critical developmental stage that is particularly vulnerable to the initiation of tobacco use. Despite the well-documented health risks associated with tobacco use, it remains prevalent among adolescents. Games for health are a promising strategy for tobacco prevention, using experiential and social learning theories to enhance engagement and improve behavior change. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aims to (1) compare the social game-based program Storm-Heroes to a nonsocial program regarding adolescents' personal and social experiences and (2) examine how these experiences predict higher tobacco knowledge and perceived risks of vaping and conventional tobacco use. METHODS: In a cluster-randomized comparative design, 4 after-school sites (N=79 adolescents) were recruited in person and randomized in a single-blinded format to 1 of 2 interventions: the social game Storm-Heroes (44/79, 56%) or the nonsocial program A Smoking Prevention Interactive Experience (ASPIRE; 35/79, 44%). A study team member supervised both interventions. Data were collected at baseline, immediate follow-up, and a 1.5-month follow-up (45/74, 61% retained). Repeated measures mixed effects models were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 45 participants continued until the 1.5-month follow-up. Participants in the Strom-Heroes group were more likely to increase their perceived risk of vaping (B=0.40; P<.001), perceived risk of conventional tobacco use (B=0.35; P=.046), and tobacco knowledge (B=1.63; P<.001) than those in the control condition. The usability level of the program was related to a higher perceived risk of vaping (B=0.16; P=.003) and conventional tobacco use (B=0.16; P=.02) by follow-up. Attention to the program was also related to higher perceived risk of vaping (B=0.12; P=.002) and conventional tobacco use (B=0.14; P<.001). Distraction was not related to either perceived risk of vaping (P=.15) or perceived risk of conventional tobacco use (P=.71). In contrast, both more attention (B=0.60; P<.001) and less distraction (B=-0.37; P<.001) were related to higher tobacco knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The increased perceived risk of vaping and conventional tobacco among Storm-Heroes participants aligns with the program's goals of improving participants' awareness of the risks associated with tobacco use and their tobacco knowledge. However, distraction weakened the effect of the program on tobacco knowledge, indicating that emphasis needs to be placed on minimizing distraction for better outcomes. With the results of this study, researchers can work to advance the current version of Storm-Heroes and amplify engagement in the program to improve its potential for preventing adolescents' initiation of tobacco use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02703597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02703597.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».