David R Strong1, Sheri J Hartman2, Jesse Nodora2, Karen Messer2, Lisa James2, Martha White2, David B Portnoy3, Conrad J Choiniere3, Genevieve C Vullo4, John Pierce2. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Moores UCSD Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA; dstrong@ucsd.edu. 2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Moores UCSD Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA; 3. Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD; 4. Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The susceptibility to smoking index can be improved as it only identifies one third of future adult smokers. Adding curiosity to this index may increase the identification of future smokers and improve the identification of effective prevention messages. METHODS: Analyses used data from the California Longitudinal Study of Smoking Transitions in Youth, for whom tobacco use behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs were assessed at 3 time points from age 12 through early adulthood. Logistic regressions were used to evaluate whether baseline curiosity about smoking was predictive of smoking during the 6-year follow-up period and whether curiosity about smoking provided evidence of incremental validity over existing measures of susceptibility to smoking. RESULTS: Compared to those who were classified as definitely not curious about smoking, teens who were classified as probably not curious (OR adj = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.28-2.81) and those classified as definitely curious (OR adj = 2.38, 95% CI= 1.49-3.79) had an increase in the odds of becoming a young adult smoker. Adding curiosity to the original susceptibility to smoking index increased the sensitivity of the enhanced susceptibility index to 78.9% compared to 62.2% identified by the original susceptibility index. However, a loss of specificity meant there was no improvement in the positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced susceptibility index significantly improves identification of teens at risk for becoming young adult smokers. Thus, this enhanced index is preferred for identifying and testing potentially effective prevention messages.
OBJECTIVES: The susceptibility to smoking index can be improved as it only identifies one third of future adult smokers. Adding curiosity to this index may increase the identification of future smokers and improve the identification of effective prevention messages. METHODS: Analyses used data from the California Longitudinal Study of Smoking Transitions in Youth, for whom tobacco use behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs were assessed at 3 time points from age 12 through early adulthood. Logistic regressions were used to evaluate whether baseline curiosity about smoking was predictive of smoking during the 6-year follow-up period and whether curiosity about smoking provided evidence of incremental validity over existing measures of susceptibility to smoking. RESULTS: Compared to those who were classified as definitely not curious about smoking, teens who were classified as probably not curious (OR adj = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.28-2.81) and those classified as definitely curious (OR adj = 2.38, 95% CI= 1.49-3.79) had an increase in the odds of becoming a young adult smoker. Adding curiosity to the original susceptibility to smoking index increased the sensitivity of the enhanced susceptibility index to 78.9% compared to 62.2% identified by the original susceptibility index. However, a loss of specificity meant there was no improvement in the positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced susceptibility index significantly improves identification of teens at risk for becoming young adult smokers. Thus, this enhanced index is preferred for identifying and testing potentially effective prevention messages.
Authors: Ellen R Gritz; Alexander V Prokhorov; Karen Suchanek Hudmon; Mary Mullin Jones; Carol Rosenblum; Chung-Chi Chang; Robert M Chamberlain; Wendell C Taylor; Dennis Johnston; Carl de Moor Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John P Pierce; Janet M Distefan; Christine Jackson; Martha M White; Elizabeth A Gilpin Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jesse Nodora; Sheri J Hartman; David R Strong; Karen Messer; Lisa E Vera; Martha M White; David B Portnoy; Conrad J Choiniere; Genevieve C Vullo; John P Pierce Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: David R Strong; Karen Messer; Martha White; Yuyan Shi; Madison Noble; David B Portnoy; Alexander Persoskie; Annette R Kaufman; Kelvin Choi; Charles Carusi; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Andrew Hyland; John Pierce Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Kiros Berhane; Jennifer B Unger; Tess Boley Cruz; Robert Urman; Chih Ping Chou; Steve Howland; Kejia Wang; Mary Ann Pentz; Tamika D Gilreath; Jimi Huh; Adam M Leventhal; Jonathan M Samet; Rob McConnell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Jessica L King; Allison Lazard; Beth A Reboussin; Leah Ranney; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Kimberly G Wagoner; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Emily T Hébert; Kathleen R Case; Steven H Kelder; Joanne Delk; Cheryl L Perry; Melissa B Harrell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: John P Pierce; James D Sargent; Martha M White; Nicolette Borek; David B Portnoy; Victoria R Green; Annette R Kaufman; Cassandra A Stanton; Maansi Bansal-Travers; David R Strong; Jennifer L Pearson; Blair N Coleman; Eric Leas; Madison L Noble; Dennis R Trinidad; Meghan B Moran; Charles Carusi; Andrew Hyland; Karen Messer Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marushka L Silveira; Kevin P Conway; Colm D Everard; Hwa Y Sim; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; David R Strong; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jennifer B Unger; Steve Sussman; Nathaniel R Riggs; Matthew D Stone; Rubin Khoddam; Jonathan M Samet; Janet Audrain-McGovern Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272