A qualitative study on Canadian youth’s perspectives of peers who smoke: an opportunity for health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer influence, peer selection, and health risk awareness are factors in smoking among youth. Despite the numerous studies on the social context, social network, and how youth define themselves and their smoking status in relation to tobacco use, qualitative knowledge about the role of smoking within peer relationships from youth themselves is only emerging. In this paper, qualitative findings describing Canadian youth's perspectives and experiences of smoking within the context of peer relationships are presented. METHODS: To examine youth's perceptions, a qualitative research study design was used. Seventy-five Canadian youth aged 11-19 years participated in open-ended interviews, focus groups, and photovoice methods. Data analysis involved several levels of analysis consistent with qualitative research. RESULTS: Youth who smoked were perceived by non-smoking peers as less popular and less socially accepted as represented by the theme: The coolness (not so cool) factor. Non-smoking youth felt that peers who smoked strained relationships and forced them to set boundaries and negotiate friendships as denoted by the theme: Negotiating friendships: Being influenced, but also influencing. Finally, in the theme of Making sense of peers who smoke, youth struggled to understand peers who continued to smoke and why they would start in the first place. CONCLUSIONS: As reinforced in this study, Canadian youth increasingly view smoking as unhealthy and uncool. Moreover, youth report resisting peer influence to smoke and in fact, are now influencing their friends who smoke to quit. The self-empowerment stories of non-smoker youth reinforces the idea that the social meaning of smoking with peers is continuing to change from one where youth accepted and participated in the smoking behaviors of their peers, to an environment where youth's perceptions of personal health is paramount. Findings from this study could be used to guide health promotion and smoking prevention programs and campaigns for youth.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".