| Literature DB >> 29678982 |
Yuko Morimoto1, Syudo Yamasaki1, Shuntaro Ando1,2, Shinsuke Koike3, Shinya Fujikawa2, Sho Kanata4, Kaori Endo1, Miharu Nakanishi1, Stephani L Hatch5, Marcus Richards6, Kiyoto Kasai2, Mariko Hiraiwa-Hasegawa7, Atsushi Nishida1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The rising prevalence of tobacco use and tobacco-attributable deaths among women is of worldwide concern. In particular, smoking prevention for mothers in early midlife is a significant international public health goal. A higher sense of purpose in life (PIL) is thought to reduce detrimental health behaviours. However, little is known about the association between a sense of PIL and tobacco use. This study investigates this association among community-dwelling mothers of early adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Tokyo Early Adolescence Survey (T-EAS); mother; psychological distress; purpose in life; tobacco use
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29678982 PMCID: PMC5914705 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020586
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Descriptive statistics for Tokyo Early Adolescence Survey variables broken down by tobacco use
| Non-smokers | Light smokers | Moderate to heavy smokers | P values | |
| N (%) | 3739 (92.0) | 204 (5.0) | 120 (3.0) | |
| Purpose in life, mean (SD) | 57.3 (9.7) | 54.8 (9.8) | 52.6 (9.9) | <0.001 |
| Age, mean (SD) | 42.0 (4.1) | 41.2 (5.0) | 40.5 (4.8) | <0.001 |
| Education, n (%) | ||||
| Junior high school or lower | 22 (0.6) | 12 (5.9) | 9 (7.5) | <0.001 |
| High school | 512 (13.7) | 66 (32.4) | 48 (40.0) | |
| Technical or junior college | 1626 (43.5) | 89 (43.6) | 51 (42.5) | |
| 4-year university or higher | 1579 (42.2) | 37 (18.1) | 12 (10.0) | |
| Marital status, n (%) | ||||
| Yes | 3613 (96.6) | 182 (89.2) | 97 (80.8) | <0.001 |
| No | 126 (3.4) | 22 (10.8) | 23 (19.2) | |
| Family annual income, n (%) | ||||
| Less than 4 million yen | 285 (7.6) | 42 (20.6) | 31 (25.8) | <0.001 |
| 4–6 million yen | 1022 (27.3) | 74 (36.3) | 57 (47.5) | |
| 7–9 million yen | 1162 (31.1) | 55 (27.0) | 21 (17.5) | |
| More than 10 million yen | 1270 (34.0) | 33 (16.2) | 11 (9.2) | |
| Alcohol use, n (%) | ||||
| Non | 1160 (31.0) | 44 (21.6) | 43 (35.8) | <0.001 |
| Less than once a month | 563 (15.1) | 35 (17.2) | 9 (7.5) | |
| 2–4 times a month | 689 (18.4) | 24 (11.8) | 15 (12.5) | |
| 2–3 times a week | 594 (15.9) | 21 (10.3) | 16 (13.3) | |
| More than four times a week | 733 (19.6) | 80 (39.2) | 37 (30.8) | |
| K6 (psychological distress), mean (SD) | 2.9 (3.3) | 3.4 (3.4) | 3.5 (3.9) | 0.026 |
Correlation coefficients among all variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
| 1 | PIL | – |
|
|
| 0.006 |
| 0.013 |
|
| 2 | Tobacco consumption | – |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 3 | Age | – |
| 0.030 |
| 0.020 |
| ||
| 4 | Education | – |
|
| −0.019 | −0.023 | |||
| 5 | Marital status | – |
| −0.003 |
| ||||
| 6 | Family annual income | – | 0.021 |
| |||||
| 7 | Alcohol use | – | −0.006 | ||||||
| 8 | Psychological distress (K6) | – | |||||||
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients except a correlation between continuous variables (PIL and K6).
Bold: Correlation coefficient is statistically significant.
*P<0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
†Pearson correlation coefficient.
PIL, purpose in life.
Logistic regression coefficients for odds of tobacco use, with and without potential confounding variables
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
| OR (95% CI) | P values | OR (95% CI) | P values | OR (95% CI) | P values | OR (95% CI) | P values | |
| Purpose in life | 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.81 | 0.001 | 0.80 | <0.001 | 0.80 | 0.001 |
| Age | 0.98 | 0.061 | 0.97 | 0.043 | 0.97 | 0.044 | ||
| Education | 0.44 | <0.001 | 0.45 | <0.001 | 0.45 | <0.001 | ||
| Marital status | 0.41 | <0.001 | 0.41 | <0.001 | 0.41 | <0.001 | ||
| Family income | 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.71 | <0.001 | ||
| Alcohol use | 1.18 | <0.001 | 1.18 | <0.001 | ||||
| Psychological distress | 1.00 | 0.974 | ||||||
Figure 1ORs for purpose in life from multinomial logistic regression analysis predicting smoking consumption (reference: non-smoker) with and without potential confounding variables. Model 5: without any adjustment; model 6: adjusting for socioeconomic covariates (educational attainment and family income); model 7: adjusting for socioeconomic covariates and alcohol consumption; model 8: adjusting for socioeconomic covariates, alcohol consumption and psychological distress.