Kim Pulvers1, Taneisha S Scheuermann2, Ashley S Emami3, Brittany Basora3, Xianghua Luo4, Samir S Khariwala5, Jasjit S Ahluwalia6. 1. Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA; kpulvers@csusm.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; 3. Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA; 4. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; 6. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Minnesota Department of Medicine and Center for Health Equity, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nondaily smokers experience adverse effects from tobacco use, yet they have been understudied compared to daily smokers. Understanding how reasons for smoking (RS) differ by smoking level, gender, and race/ethnicity could inform tailored interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered through an online panel survey service to 2,376 current smokers who were at least 25 years of age. The sample was stratified to obtain equal numbers of 3 racial/ethnic groups (African American [AA], Latino, and White) across smoking level (native nondaily, converted nondaily, daily light, and daily moderate/heavy). RESULTS: A 7-factor structure of a 20-item Modified Reasons for Smoking Scale (MRSS) was confirmed (each subscale alpha > 0.80). Each factor of the MRSS varied by smoking level, with nondaily smokers endorsing all RS less frequently than daily smokers (p < .0001). The 4 smoker subgroups incrementally differed from one another (p < .05) with several exceptions between converted nondaily and daily light smokers. Males reported stronger RS on 5 out of 7 reasons (p < .05). Females had higher scores on tension reduction/relaxation (p < .0001). Latinos reported stronger RS than Whites and AAs on all reasons (p < .05) except for tension reduction/relaxation (p > .05). AAs and Whites were comparable on all RS (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights considerable variability across smoking level, gender, and race/ethnicity in strength of RS. Addressing subgroup differences in RS may contribute to more sensitive and effective prevention and treatment efforts.
INTRODUCTION: Nondaily smokers experience adverse effects from tobacco use, yet they have been understudied compared to daily smokers. Understanding how reasons for smoking (RS) differ by smoking level, gender, and race/ethnicity could inform tailored interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered through an online panel survey service to 2,376 current smokers who were at least 25 years of age. The sample was stratified to obtain equal numbers of 3 racial/ethnic groups (African American [AA], Latino, and White) across smoking level (native nondaily, converted nondaily, daily light, and daily moderate/heavy). RESULTS: A 7-factor structure of a 20-item Modified Reasons for Smoking Scale (MRSS) was confirmed (each subscale alpha > 0.80). Each factor of the MRSS varied by smoking level, with nondaily smokers endorsing all RS less frequently than daily smokers (p < .0001). The 4 smoker subgroups incrementally differed from one another (p < .05) with several exceptions between converted nondaily and daily light smokers. Males reported stronger RS on 5 out of 7 reasons (p < .05). Females had higher scores on tension reduction/relaxation (p < .0001). Latinos reported stronger RS than Whites and AAs on all reasons (p < .05) except for tension reduction/relaxation (p > .05). AAs and Whites were comparable on all RS (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights considerable variability across smoking level, gender, and race/ethnicity in strength of RS. Addressing subgroup differences in RS may contribute to more sensitive and effective prevention and treatment efforts.
Authors: Megan E Piper; Thomas M Piasecki; E Belle Federman; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Dennis R Trinidad; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Martha M White; Sherry L Emery; Karen Messer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kim Pulvers; A Paula Cupertino; Taneisha S Scheuermann; Lisa Sanderson Cox; Yen-Yi Ho; Nicole L Nollen; Ruby Cuellar; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 1.847