Effectiveness of Antismoking Media Messages and Education Among Adolescents in Malaysia and Thailand: Findings From the International Tobacco Control Southeast Asia Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Finding ways to discourage adolescents from taking up smoking is important because those who begin smoking at an earlier age are more likely to become addicted and have greater difficulty in quitting. This article examined whether anti smoking messages and education could help to reduce smoking susceptibility among adolescents in two Southeast Asian countries and to explore the possible moderating effect of country and gender. METHODS: Data came from Wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control Southeast Asia Project (ITC-SEA) survey conducted in Malaysia (n = 1,008) and Thailand (n = 1,000) where adolescents were asked about receiving antismoking advice from nurses or doctors, being taught at schools about the danger of smoking, noticing antismoking messages, knowledge of health effects of smoking, beliefs about the health risks of smoking, smoking susceptibility, and demographic information. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, significantly more Thai adolescents reported receiving advice from their nurses or doctors about the danger of smoking (p < .001), but no country difference was observed for reported antismoking education in schools and exposure to antismoking messages. Multivariate analyses revealed that only provision of antismoking education at schools was significantly associated with reduced susceptibility to smoking among female Malaysian adolescents (OR = 0.26). Higher knowledge of smoking harm and higher perceived health risk of smoking were associated with reduced smoking susceptibility among Thai female (OR = 0.52) and Malaysian male adolescents (OR = 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Educating adolescents about the dangers of smoking in schools appears to be the most effective means of reducing adolescents' smoking susceptibility in both countries, although different prevention strategies may be necessary to ensure effectiveness for male and female adolescents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".