| Literature DB >> 28747857 |
Sun S Kim1, Hua Fang2,3,4, Kunsook Bernstein5, Zhaoyang Zhang2, Joseph DiFranza2, Douglas Ziedonis6, Jeroan Allison2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Korean Americans are known for a high smoking prevalence within the Asian American population. This study examined the effects of acculturation and depression on Korean Americans' smoking cessation and abstinence.Entities:
Keywords: Acculturation; Culturally adaptive intervention; Depression; Fuzzy clustering; Longitudinal; MIFuzzy; Multiple imputation; Smoking cessation; Trajectory pattern recognition
Year: 2017 PMID: 28747857 PMCID: PMC5525352 DOI: 10.1186/s12971-017-0135-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tob Induc Dis ISSN: 1617-9625 Impact factor: 2.600
Differences in intervention attributes among three identified patterns
| Intervention Attributesa | Culturally Adapted |
| More Bicultural |
| Less Bicultural |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SEb | M | SE2 | M | SE2 | |
| Included in MI-Fuzzy | ||||||
| Perceived benefit at 1-M F/U*** | 133.56 | 1.88 | 135.41 | 2.33 | 112.91 | 5.67 |
| Perceived benefit at 3-M F/U | 128.72 | 3.05 | 125.19 | 4.72 | 113.21 | 4.06 |
| Perceived benefit at 6-M F/U** | 129.23 | 2.30 | 135.05 | 2.23 | 115.00 | 4.32 |
| Perceived benefit at 12-M F/U*** | 129.50 | 3.16 | 135.65 | 2.65 | 113.79 | 4.98 |
| Perceived family norm at 1-M F/U*** | 5.63 | 0.14 | 5.57 | 0.10 | 3.91 | 0.31 |
| Perceived family norm at 3-M F/U*** | 5.59 | 0.09 | 5.57 | 0.11 | 4.21 | 0.28 |
| Perceived family norm at 6-M F/U*** | 5.36 | 0.14 | 5.45 | 0.11 | 4.08 | 0.30 |
| Perceived family norm a4 12-M F/U*** | 5.14 | 0.16 | 5.43 | 0.12 | 3.79 | 0.24 |
| Excluded | ||||||
| Perceived risk at 1-M F/U** | 56.00 | 2.16 | 53.07 | 2.70 | 72.50 | 6.50 |
| Perceived risk at 3-M F/U* | 64.46 | 2.26 | 54.48 | 2.34 | 75.13 | 4.87 |
| Perceived risk at 6-M F/U | 64.61 | 2.84 | 67.76 | 3.15 | 77.71 | 5.15 |
| Perceived risk at 12-M F/U | 63.10 | 2.75 | 68.43 | 3.09 | 80.40 | 4.65 |
| Perceived peer norm at 1-M F/U | 3.72 | 0.33 | 3.93 | 0.42 | 2.42 | 0.82 |
| Perceived peer norm at 3-M F/U* | 3.70 | 0.38 | 4.48 | 0.32 | 1.93 | 0.64 |
| Perceived peer norm at 6-M F/U | 3.68 | 0.34 | 4.14 | 0.39 | 2.29 | 0.47 |
| Perceived peer norm at 12-M F/U | 4.00 | 0.32 | 3.57 | 0.53 | 1.73 | 0.73 |
| Self-efficacy at 1-M F/U*** | 40.94 | 1.01 | 40.41 | 1.16 | 32.58 | 2.00 |
| Self-efficacy at 3-M F/U | 37.54 | 1.31 | 39.43 | 1.54 | 34.60 | 1.99 |
| Self-efficacy at 6-M F/U | 38.34 | 1.70 | 35.68 | 1.61 | 31.93 | 2.05 |
| Self-efficacy at 12-M F/U | 36.90 | 1.44 | 34.74 | 1.98 | 29.40 | 2.38 |
aMissingness ranges from 9%–18% for intervention attributes
bFor multiple imputation, the means and standard errors were computed based on ten imputed data sets (Robin, 1996; Shafer, 1997)
M Month, F/U follow-up
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Background difference among three identified clusters
| Variablea | Culturally Adapted |
| More Bicultural |
| Less Bicultural |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
| Age | 50.08 | 8.18 | 50.47 | 8.37 | 45.47 | 13.38 |
| Education | 14.74 | 2.49 | 14.97 | 1.71 | 14.13 | 1.96 |
| Bidirectional Acculturation** | 2.83 | 0.37 | 3.18 | 0.41 | 3.02 | 0.52 |
| Smoking duration | 18.32 | 8.66 | 19.25 | 9.03 | 16.13 | 8.72 |
| Age at smoking onset | 19.76 | 4.03 | 20.75 | 4.17 | 19.20 | 3.75 |
| Cigarettes per day at baseline | 16.58 | 5.44 | 16.88 | 4.82 | 17.60 | 7.91 |
| Cigarettes per day at 12-M F/U* | 4.88 | 6.47 | 8.22 | 7.40 | 9.36 | 6.10 |
| Nicotine dependence at 1-M F/U** | 0.10 | 0.52 | 0.14 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 2.05 |
| Nicotine dependence at 3-M F/U | 0.98 | 1.93 | 0.52 | 1.25 | 1.14 | 1.79 |
| Nicotine dependence at 6-M F/U | 1.36 | 2.26 | 1.68 | 2.21 | 2.15 | 1.86 |
| Nicotine dependence at12-M F/U | 1.40 | 2.07 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2.50 | 2.31 |
| Alcohol use at baseline | 5.70 | 5.74 | 4.97 | 4.66 | 5.93 | 6.25 |
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |
| Female | 8 | 8.25 | 5 | 5.15 | 3 | 3.09 |
| Marital status (Married)* | 42 | 43.30 | 27 | 27.84 | 8 | 8.25 |
| Employment (Yes) | 45 | 46.39 | 29 | 29.90 | 13 | 13.40 |
| Alcohol use problems (Yes) | 19 | 19.59 | 10 | 10.31 | 4 | 4.12 |
aThe 11 smokers who did not participate this study did not differ from those included for analyses across all these variables (ps:0 .11–.98)
M Month, F/U follow-up
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Fig. 1MIFuzzy validation: the minimum XBmi index for the optimal 3 clusters, legend: Optimal 3 clusters with abrupt decreased or minimal value of XB validation index. X-axis: the number of clusters; Y-axis: the values of XB
Fig. 2Sammon Mapping of three latent clusters, legend: Sammon mapping further supported three latent clusters, where asterisks represent the projected centroids and dots represent subjects within the identified clusters. The values on the two axes are the projected normalized scores for these subjects
Fig. 3(a) Perceived Benefit Trajectory Patterns, (b) Perceived Family Norm Trajectory Patterns. Identified Trajectory Patterns for Culturally-Adapted (blue), more bicultural (MB, red) and less bicultural (LB, green) groups across included intervention components; X-axis: the number of intervention months; Y-axis: (a) Perceived Benefit or (b) Perceived Family Norm