Smoking cessation behaviours in a cohort of newly initiated Montreal-area adolescent cigarette smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. After several years of decline, the prevalence of smoking among Canadian adolescents has stabilized at 18%. A lack of knowledge about the process of smoking cessation among adolescents, about how cessation behaviours should be measured, and about the environmental and social factors that influence cessation, has impeded research that would support the development of cessation programs targeted specifically to adolescent smokers that could further reduce the prevalence of smoking. The objectives of this dissertation were to investigate newly initiated adolescent smokers: (i) to identify measures of cessation relevant to the early stages of smoking onset and nicotine dependence; (ii) to estimate the incidence of first cessation attempts and the risk of subsequent relapse; and (iii) to estimate the effect of social influences (friend, sibling and parental smoking) on the occurrence of first cessation attempts and on subsequent relapse. Method. A cohort of 283 newly initiated adolescent smokers was followed from 1999 to 2005. Results. First cessation attempts occurred soon after initiation (median 2.5 months), and were more often reports of having "tried smoking but... [have] now stopped completely and (probably) forever" (i.e., labelled the no longer trying smoking indicator in this dissertation) than of having "seriously... [tried] to quit smoking completely and forever" (i.e., labelled the quit indicator in this dissertation). The incidence of no longer trying smoking was higher among triers compared to those at more advanced stages of smoking onset; and among those who had never experienced symptoms of nicotine dependence or more advanced smoking milestones (e.g., those who had never smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) compared to those who had. The incidence of having quit did not differ across these characteristics. The risk of relapse both after no longer trying smoking and after having quit was high (cumulative incidence, 95% confidence interval [CI] at 6 months 0.56, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.65 and 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.78, respectively). Compared to adolescents with no friends who smoke, adolescents with a few friends who smoke (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6, 1.2) or with half or more friends who smoke (HR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.0) were at lower risk of attempting cessation. Compared to subjects with siblings who do not smoke, subjects with siblings who smoke were more likely to attempt cessation (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0, 1.9), whereas subjects who did not have siblings were more likely to relapse (HR: 1.8, 95% CI: 0.9, 3.6). Neither friend nor parental smoking had a strong or significant effect on risk of relapse. Conclusions. The immediacy with which newly initiated adolescent smokers first attempt cessation and then relapse suggests that surveillance and research on cessation in adolescents should include smokers in the earliest stages of smoking onset and nicotine dependence. The earliest cessation attempts should be assessed both as no longer trying smoking and as having quit. Among newly initiated adolescent smokers, both friend smoking and siblings may influence cessation behaviours. Cessation programs targeted to newly initiated adolescent smokers may need to incorporate components that take social influences into account. In addition, such programming may need to incorporate a relapse-prevention component.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".