The smoking attitudes, knowledge, intent, and behaviors of adolescents and young adults: Implications for nursing practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background /Objective: Sixty percent of all smokers in the United States (U.S.) try smoking cigarettes before they are 18 years old. Family and peer behavior (subjective norm), and attitude may influence young people to initiate smoking. The aims of this study were to 1) determine if attitude, subjective norm, and knowledge could predict smoking behaviors; 2) identify reasons for smoking; 3) determine if there were differences in attitudes toward smoking between smokers and non-smokers; and 4) determine smokers’ intent to quit. Methods: The population of interest included individuals age 30 or younger. The instrument, in the form of an online Tobacco Survey, was distributed via email, Facebook®, and other social media. The survey was created on Survey Monkey.com®. Data were collected for nine months and analyzed using SPSS® version 17 for Windows®. Results: Cronbach’s alpha for the primary factors were high to adequate, attitude a = .89, knowledge a = .71, and subjective norm a = .67. Results suggested subjective norm and attitude may predict smoking but knowledge was not a predictor. Over 70% of the smokers tried their first cigarette before the age of 18 years. Most reported reasons for smoking were alcohol consumption, smoking with friends in social settings, stress relief, and relaxation. Seventy-five percent of the smokers agreed that smoking was addictive and knowledge was high regarding the hazards of smoking. Less than 50% of the smokers planned to quit within the next year. Conclusions: Tobacco use among adolescents and young adults may be directly influenced by overall attitude and peer and family smoking behaviors. Knowledge of the hazards of smoking does not appear to influence smoking behaviors; therefore it is recommended health care providers, and others in a position to influence young people, focus on changing attitudes about smoking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".