Social norms as a predictor of smoking uptake among youth: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".