PDF Smoking

8/8/2019 PDF Smoking

1/5

Singapore M ed J 2000 Vol 41(4) : 167-171 O r i g i n a l A r t i c l e

Department of CommunityHealth

Faculty of Medicine

UniversitiKebangsaanMalaysia

Jalan Yaacob Latiff,Bandar TunRazak Cheras,56000 KualaLumpur Malaysia

K Shamsuddin,MBBCh, MPH,SM, DrPH

M Abdul Haris,MD, SKM

Correspondence to:Dr K Shamsuddin

Family Influence on Current SmokingHabits Among Secondary School Childrenin Kota Bharu, KelantanK Shamsuddin, M Abdul H aris

INTRODUCTIONMany studies have shown significant associationbetween smoking habit of family members especiallythat of the fat hers smoking habit on a stude nts smokinghabi t (1-3) . This could be explained by Banduras

Cognitive Social Theory which believes that throughobservational learning or mode lling of the b ehavioursof others, we adopt these behaviour ourselves (4,5) .Bandura et al contend that beha viours are imitated moreoften when models are o f the same sex, well respected,receive tangible rewards for their actions and areperceived as similar to the observer (6) . Thus familyespecially parental behaviours strongly influencechildrens and adolescents behaviours both positivelyor negat ively.

Smoking, a well-known health risk, is increasinglyacquired at younger ages, during late childhood andadolescence (7) . Cigarette manufacturers are known totarget young children with the ir aggressive advertising (12)

but they could well be helped unwittingly by adultmembers of hundreds of thousands of families topromote t heir deadly products.

The prevalence of cigarette smoking, based on asurvey of 4,106 urban form four secondary schoolchildren, aged between 15 - 16 years old, in KualaLump ur in 1984 was foun d to be 9.8% . In this study, therate o f smoking was 17.3% for ma le studen ts and 1.9%for female student s (8) . In a later study conducted o n 8,625

students from form 1 to form 6, aged 13 - 18 years, inKuala Lumpur, the smoking prevalence was found tobe 3.6% and of the se, 88.7% were males (9) . A 1989 studyon the smoking prevalence among male form fivesecondary school students, aged between 16 - 17 years,in rural Pasir Mas, Kelantan, showed the level of smoking to be at 41.4% (10) .

The objectives of this study were to measure thesmoking prevalence o f male form four students, aged

between 15 - 16 years in Kota Bharu, Kelantan a nd tospecifically study the influence of family members

part icularly that of the fath ers smoking habits on astudents current smoking habits and to assess whetherthis influence remains when other familial and non-familial factors are controlled.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To measure the prevalence of cigarettesmoking among male secondary school children andassess their family influence especially that of theirfathers smoking habits on their current smoking habits.

Methodology: A cross-sectional study was carriedout in Kota Bharu, Kelantan in April 1997 where460 male form four students, aged 15 - 16 years wererandomly selected from six secondary schools. Dataon smoking habits, sociodemographic profile andfamily characteristics particularly parents andsiblings smoking habits, perceived parentalsupervision and communication were collectedthrough self-administered questionnaires.

Results: The prevalence of cigaret te smoking amongmale secondary school children was 33.2%. Crudeanalysis shows family factors, fathers and siblingssmoking habits, and lack of parental supervision weresignificantly associated with the students currentsmoking habit. Among students who smokedcompared to non-smokers, fathers smoking habitgives a crude Odds Ratio = 1.8, 95% C.I. 1.08 - 3.16.Further analysis shows that t he effect of their fatherssmoking habit on the students current smokinghabit is still significant after controlling for otherfamilial and non-familial factors including parentalsupervision, academic performance, reported

influence of cigaret te advert isement, having friendswho smoked and the students poor knowledge ofthe ill-effects of smoking and other factors (OddsRatio = 1.9, 95% C.I 1.05 - 3.32).

In conclusion, family factors especially the fatherssmoking habit is an important factor t hat influencesa students current smoking habit and the presenceof negative role models within the home need to beseriously considered in any cigarette smokingprevention programs among secondary schooladolescents.

Keywords: smoking, male students, adolescents,family influence, fathers smoking habit

Singapore Med J2000 Vol 41(4):167-171


2/5

168 : 200 0 Vol 41(4)Singapore Med J

METHODSA cross sectional survey was conducted in Kota Bharu,Kelantan in April 1997. Six secondary schools wererandomly selected from a total of 34 government secondaryschools in the district. Four hundred and sixty male formfour students, aged 15 - 16 years, were then randomlychosen from the 6 schools to participate in this survey.

Data was obtained through self-administeredquestionnaire which were filled in the presence of theresearcher and in the absence of teachers and other schoolstaff. All personal identification including names andidentity card numbers were not taken to assureconfidentiality and students were promised that theirindividual answers would not be given to the school authority.

For the purpose of this study, smokers refer tostudents who are regular smokers (smoking at least 1

cigarette per day for at least a month) and occasionalsmokers are smoke rs who smoke at least 1 cigarette permonth. Non smokers is as the name implies are thosewho have stopped smoking and those who experimentedwith cigaret tes. Besides biological paren ts, the main maleand female guardians are included as fathers and

moth ers in this study. Inte rpersona l communication wasmeasured using a 20-i tem Parent-adolescentComm unication Scale based on O lson et als FamilyInventories Scale. The items are b ased on a 1 - 5 Likertscale where 1 represen ts strongly disagree and 5, stronglyagree with each item in the scale. Good interpersonalcommunication is defined as one with a total score whichis more than the median and vice-versa. Perceived parenta lsupervision was measured b y asking students a q uestionthat has 5 possible responses on whether their parentsknew of their whereabouts. These responses included:always know, sometimes know, not sure, rarely knowor never know. In this study, good parental supervisionrefers to which students perceived their parents alwaysor sometimes knew of their whereabouts.

Method of analysis

In th e an alysis, the smoking status of ma le students wasfirst described. Then among smokers, the number of

cigarettes smoked and their reasons for smoking weredescribed. The frequencies and percentage distributionof the smoking status of different family members, andvarious other family and non-family risk factors amongsmokers and non-smokers were compared. The Chi-square tests were used to measure the association betweenthese risk factors and students the smoking status.

In subsequent analysis, using a data set with 244students who had complete information on the factorsbeing explored a nd a djusted, separate logistic regressionanalyses were used to determ ine the e xtent of fatherssmoking habit on students smoking habit estimating boththe od ds ratio and 95% confidence intervals. Multiplelogistic regression analyses were then carried out todetermine the change in the associat ion betweenfathers smoking habits on students current smoking

habits when other risk factors are controlled singly oras a group. Changes in the ad justed odds ratio and their95% confidence inte rvals of fathe rs smoking habits onstudents smoking habit were then compa red to thecrude estimates. The data in this study was analysedusing SPSS version 7 statistical package .

RESULTSFrom t he 460 male students in this study, 38 respond ents(8.3% ) were d ropped from the analysis since they didnot fill up the important parts of the questionnaire. Thusanalysis was based on 422 respondent s. All respondentsin this study are Ma lays and the ir average a ge is 15.6 +0.4 years.

Smoking among male form four studentsTable I shows that 140 (33.2% ) student s are curren tsmokers while 282 (66.8% ) are non-smokers. Non-smokers are students who had either stopped smoking,students who experimented smoking or those who neversmoke. In this study, the minimal age for trying smokingwas 5 years old and 39.3% of th ese students had triedsmoking while still in primary schools (age 12 years or less).

Among smokers, most of the students smokedbetwee n 1 to 5 cigarett es per day (62.9% ) while 3students (2.1% ) smoked mor e than 20 cigarettes perday. O f the 227 responses given as reasons for smok ing,74 (52.9%) reported addiction to cigarette s as the mainreason for smoking while 52 (37.1% ) and 41 (29.3% )respectively gave to be looked as matured and to betrendy as re asons for smoking (Table II).

Family influenceTable III shows the nu mber o f different family members

who smoked among smokers a nd n on-smokers. 82.1%of smokers and 73.4% of non-smokers repo rted at leastone family membe r in their families smoked . In general,the prevalence of smoking amo ng all categories of family

Table I. Current smoking stat us among secondary school studentsin the study (n = 422)

Students current Number Percentsmoking status

SMOKERS 140 33.2Regular smoker 65 15.4Occasional smoker 75 17.8

NON-SMOKERS 282 66.8

Ex-smokers 40 9.5Non smokers but 104 24.6experimented smokingNever-smokers 138 32.7


3/5

Singapore Med J 2000 Vol 41(4) : 169

members is higher among smokers compared to non-smokers. Among smoke rs, 85 (60.7%) had fathers whosmoked while amon g non-smokers, 137 (48.6% ) ha dfathers who smoked. Among the 282 students withsiblings, 70 (66.7% ) smok ers ha d siblings who smo kedin contra st to 86 (48.6%) siblings of non-smokers whodid the same. The associations between fathers and

siblings smoking habit are found to be statisticallysignificant based on chi-square tests (p < l 0.05).

The pr evalence of other family factors, interper sonalcommunication with mothe rs and fathers and perceivedmaterna l and p aternal supervisions are generally loweramong smokers compared to n on-smokers (Table IV).However the assoc ia t ions be tween the l eve l o f interpersonal communication with either parent andcigarette smoking are not statistically significant. In

contrast pe rceived level of paren tal supervision by eitherfathers or mothers , are found to be s ignif icant lyassociated with current smoking habit.

Non-family influenceTable IV also shows the association betwee n non -family

factors, academic performance, level of knowledge onil l effects of smoking, reported influence of advertisement and friends smoking status with studen tscurrent smo king statu s. The pr evalence of low academicachievement is higher among smokers compared t o non-smokers. Low level of knowledge on the ill effects of smoking is also pre valent among smokers compare d tonon -smokers (32.8% versus 21.2%). 37.1% of smokerscompared 19.9% of non-smokers repor ted beinginfluenced by cigarette advertisement. In general bothsmokers and non -smokers rep orted h aving friends whoare smokers but significantly higher percentage of current smokers had friends who are smokers comparedto non-smokers. Thus in this study, all the non-familyfactors investigated are found to be significantlyassociated with current cigarette smoking amongsecondary school students.

Relationship between fathers smoking habit withstudents current smoking habitCrud e ana lysis shows that fathe rs smok ing habit issignificantly associated with current cigarette smokingamong students. Using logistic regression technique ona sample of 244 responden ts who answered all questionsbeing investigated, Table V shows the crude odds ratiofor current smoking among students with fathers whoare smokers compared to th ose whose fathers are non-smoker s is 1.8 (95% CI = 1.08, 3.16).

Multiple logistic regression an alysis contro lling foreach selected factor singly along with fathers smokingstatus and later with all other selected risk factors of curren t smoking among male studen t with fathers

smoking habit shows that the estimated odds ratio of the effects of fathers smoking status remain constantand significant. Table V shows that when all other factorsare controlled for, the odds ratio of current smokingamong students with fathers who smoke compared tothose with fathers who do not smoke is 1.9 (95% CI =

1.05, 3.32). Thus fath ers smoking statu s continue s to b ea significant risk factor of sons curren t smok ing status

during mid-adolescence (form four or appr oximately 15- 16-year-old) even after con trolling for other risk factors.

Table II. Number of cigarett es smoked and reasons given forsmoking among smokers (n = 140)

Variables Number Percent

NUMBER OF CIGARETTE SMOKED

Less than 1 cigarette per month 25 17.91 - 5 cigarettes per day 88 62.96 - 10 cigarettes per day 19 13.611 - 20 cigarettes per day 5 3.6More than 20 cigarettes per day 3 2.1

REASON SFOR SMOKING*

addicted to cigarettes 74 52.9to look matured 52 37.1to be trendy 41 29.3to be stylish 32 22.9to be accepted by peers 28 20.0

* can be more than one answer (n = 227, total number of responses)

Table III.Relationship between family members smoking status andstudents smoking (n = 422)

Students smoking statusFamily members Smokers Non-smokers p-valuesmoking status No. (%) No. (%)

Family smoking status 0.05*Yes 115 (82.1) 207 (73.4)No 25 (17.9) 75 (26.6)

Fathers smoking status 0.02*Yes 85 (60.7) 137 (48.6)

No 55 (39.3) 145 (51.4)Mothers smoking status 0.89 c

Yes 3 (2.1) 4 (1.4)No 137 (97.9) 278 (98.6)

Siblings smoking status 0.00*Yes 70 (66.7) 86 (48.6)No 35 (33.3) 91 (51.4)

Grandfathers smoking status 0.31Yes 29 (20.7) 47 (16.7)No 111 (79.3) 235 (83.3)

Grandmothers smoking status 0.06Yes 18 (12.9) 19 (6.7)No 122 (87.1) 263 (93.3)

* Significant (p < 0.05); Any close family members, father, siblings or either grandparents; Analysis of siblings smoking status is based on n = 282, since not all students had

an older or younger brothers or sisters; c W ith Yates correction.


4/5

170 : 200 0 Vol 41(4)Singapore Med J

DISCUSSIONThe prevalence of smoking among school children

varies with place and population where the studies areconducted. It also depends on the age group of thestudents surveyed. From this study, the prevalence of smoking amo ng male stud ents, 15 - 16 years of age, was33.2% . This is worrisome since out of ever y three 15 to16-year-old, male stude nts in Kota B haru , Kelantan, oneis a smoke r. In addition, this study shows that initiation o f smoking among smokers be gan very early where 39.3%of students had tried smoking before th e age of 12, whilestill in their primary schools. Among 16 to 17-year-oldform five students in Pasir Mas Kelantan in 1989, WanMansur reported an even higher prevalence of smoking

which was 41.4% (10) . In contrast the studies on secondaryschool students in Kuala Lumpur in 1984 and 1994 showed

a lower pre valence of smoking (8,9) . In fact the 1994 studyby Harjeet et al showed a lower prevalence of smokingcompared to th e 1984 study. These studies are ho wevernot directly comparable since the age groups being studieddiffered markedly.

Although this study focused on family influenceespecially fathers smoking habit on students currentsmoking habit, other well-known risk factors were alsoexplored . Table IV sho ws tha t similar to t he findings of other studies, the crude analysis of many other risk factors, especially perceived influence o f advertisement ,having peers who smoked, and lack of knowledge onthe ill-effects of smoking showed significant associationwith students current smoking habits (12-14) .

With regards the association betwee n father ssmoking habit and students current smoking habit,based on crude an alyses of the d ifferences in rates (TableIII) a nd logistic regression ana lysis (Table V) , this stud yshows significant association be tween t he two. Table Vshows that based on crude analysis, students whosefathers are smoker s are almost twice at higher risk of smoking compared to those whose fathers are notsmokers (O .R = 1.8, 95% C.I = 1.08 - 3.16). The

association be tween fathers smoking hab it and studentscurrent smoking habit rema ins significant when o therrisk factors which were statistically significant b y crudeanalyses were controlled singly or together. Table Vshows that when all other risk factors considered in thiss tudy were con t ro l led , the r i sk d id no t changesignificant ly (O.R = 1.9, 95% C.I = 1.05 - 3.32).

This result concurred with Ba ndur as Cognitive SocialTheory which believes that through observational learning

or mod elling of the be haviours of others, we adop t the sebehaviours ourselves especially if the model is someone

respected like the father(4,6,15)

. The evidence from th is studyshowed that fathers smoking habit is strongly associatedwith stude nts current smoking habit and rema ined sowhen other risk factors are controlled for. This finding

Table IV. Relationship between ot her family factors and non-familyfactors with students smoking status

Students smoking status

Factors Smokers Non-smokers p-valuen** No. (%) No. (%)

FAMILY FACTORSMaternal communication 416 0.09

Good 61 (44.5) 149 (53.4)Poor 76 (55.5) 130 (46.6)

Paternal communication 396 0.23Good 62 (47.0) 141 (53.4)Poor 70 (53.0) 123 (49.6)

Maternal supervision 419 0.00*Good 82 (59.0) 217 (77.5)Not very good 57 (41.0) 63 (22.5)

Paternal supervision 411 0.03*Good 60 (44.1) 152 (55.3)Not very good 76 (55.9) 123 (44.7)

NON-FAMILY FACTORSAcademic performance 417 0.00*

High 38 (27.7) 122 (43.6)Low 99 (72.3) 158 (56.4)

Students knowledge on 384 0.01*the effects of smoking

High 84 (67.1) 204 (78.8)Low 41 (32.8) 55 (21.2)

Cigarette advertisement 422 0.00*Reported influence 52 (37.1) 56 (19.9)No influence 88 (62.9) 226 (80.1)

Friends smoking status 422 0.01*Smokers 138 (98.6) 262 (92.9)Non-smokers 2 (1.4) 20 (7.1)

* Significant (p < 0.05)** No. of respondents used in the analyses

Table V.Change in odds rat ios and 95% confidence intervals forsmoking among students whose father is a smokercompared to those whose father is a non-smoker whencontrolled for specific family and non-family factors (n = 244)

Factors controlled for Odds ratio 95%C.I.(Along with fathers smoking habit)*

CRUDE AN ALYSISFathers smoking habit 1.8 (1.08 - 3.16)

CONTROLLED ANALYSIS(Friends smoking habits) 1.9 (1.08 - 3.18)(influence of cigar et te adver tisement ) 1.8 (1.07 - 3.19)(Knowledge on the ill effects of smoking) 1.9 (1.08 - 3.20)(Friends smoking habits 1.9 (1.08 - 3.28)Influence of cigaret te advert isementKnowledge on the ill-effects of smoking)

(Education stream) 1.9 (1.09 - 3.21)(Academic achievement) 1.8 (1.05 - 3.09)(Education stream 1.8 (1.06 - 3.18)Academic achievementKnowledge on the ill-effects of smoking)

(Siblings smoking habit) 1.8 (1.02 - 3.03)(Parental supervision) 1.9 (1.12 - 3.36)(Siblings smoking habit 1.9 (1.06 - 3.22)Parental supervision)All of the above factors at once (?) 1.9 (1.05 - 3.32)

* The comparison groups used in the above analyses are having father who does not smoke, having friends who do not smoke, reported poor influence of cigarette advertisement, having high knowledge of the ill-effects of smoking, being in a non-Art academic stream, having good academic achievement, having siblings who do not smoke and having good parental supervision.


5/5

Singapore Med J 2000 Vol 41(4) : 171

REFERENCES1. Bewley BR, Bland JM, Harris R. Factors associated with the starting of

cigarette smoking by primary school children. Br J Soc Med 1974; 28:37-44.2. Zhu BP, Liu M, Wang SQ, He GQ, Chen DH, Shi JH, Shang JZ. Cigarette

smoking among junior high school students in Beijing, China, 1988.

Int J Epid 1992; 21:854-61.3. Emmanuel SC, Ho CK, Chen AJ. Cigarette smoking among school

children in Singapore, Part I - Smoking prevalence. Singapore Med J1990; 31:211-6.

4. Green M. Theories of human development: A comparative approach. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1989.

5. MacFarlane A, McPherson A, McPherson K, Ahmed L. Teenagers andtheir health. Arc Dis Childhood 1987; 62:1125-9.

6. Santrock JW. Life span development (5th Edition). Madison: Brown &Benchmark Publ., 1995.

7. Bartecchi CE, MacKenzie TD, Schrier RW. The global tobacco epidemic.Sci Am 1995; 272:26-33.

8. Thambypillai V. Smoking among Malaysian school children. Soc Sci Med1985; 21:819-23.

9. Hanjeet K, Lye MS, Ahmad Nizam, Zanariah O, Shaikh Hamdan SR, SHaslinda MD. Licit and illicit substance use among urban Malaysiansecondary school children in Kuala Lumpur. Berita Pemadam 1996; 2:28-9.

10. Wan Mansur Hamzah. A study of knowledge, attitude and practice of cigarette smoking among Malay secondary school students in the districtof Pasir Mas, Kelantan. Master of Public Health Thesis, University of Malaya, 1990.

11. Olson DH, Barnes H. Family inventories: Parents-adolescentcommunication (2nd Edition) 1992; 29-44.

12. Davis RM. Current trends in cigarette advertising and marketing. NEJM1987; 316:725-32.

13. Fischer PM, Richards JR Jr., Berman EJ, Krugman DM. Recall and eyetracking study of adolescents viewing tobacco advertisements. JAMA1989; 261:84-9.

14. Pomrehn P, Sciandra R, Shipley R, Lynn W, Lando H. Enhancing resourcesfor smoking cessation through community intervention. Int Quar HealtEdu 1990-91; 11:259-69.

15. Houston JP, Bee H, Rimm DC. Essentials of Psychology (2nd Edition),Orlando: Academic Press Inc., 1985.

16. Emmanuel SC, Ho CK, Chen AJ. Cigarette smoking among schoolchildren in Singapore, Part II Development of the smoking habit.Singapore Med J 1991; 32:146-50.

among Malay male students is similar to that found instudies outside Malaysia (1,2,16) . The study on stud ent ssmoking habit amo ng school children in Singapore alsoconcluded that fathers were the main models for thedevelopment of smoking habits among children (16) .

This stud y also sho ws that within families, siblingssmoking habits are also significantly associated withstuden ts smok ing habit. 66.7% of smoker s had siblingswho also smoked compared t o 48.6% of non-smokerswho had siblings with similar habits. This result isconsistent with that found in studies conducted in bo thdeveloped and developing countries (1,2) .

Analysis shows significant inverse associationbetween good pare ntal supervision and students

smoking habits. Non-smokers perceived their parentsknew of their whereabout more often than smokers.

Perceived strong pa renta l supervision will decrease th eirchances of being involved in smoking.

The effects of good interpersonal communicationbetween adolescents and their parents with studentscurrent smoking habits was also studied. Good p arenta lcommunication has been seen as a way to prevent high-risk behaviours among adolescents. In this study,although a higher percentage of non-smokers reportedhaving good interpersonal communication with theirpare nts, their association with curren t smoking habits isnot statistically significant.

This study showed t hat t he smok ing habits of familymem bers e specially tha t of th e fath ers is significantlyassociated with students current smoking habits evenafter controlling for other risk factors. Fathers areimportant role models for their sons. Among boys,besides smoking, other high-risk behaviours such assubstance abuse, alcohol abuse, gambling and violencemay be modelled through family members especiallyfathers. Studies on the negative influence of familymembers on smoking and other high risk behavioursinvolving adolescents of both sexes and of differentlevels of development and age groups need to be

conducted in order to develop a more comprehensiveprevention pr ogram tar geting secondary school children.

This study focused on family influences on currentsmoking habit and did not assess its influence oncigarette e xperimentation. Amon g students surveyed inthis study, cigarette experimentation was as early as5 years old, and 39.3% of the se students had t riedsmoking while still in pr imary schools (age 12 year s orless). It would b e inter esting to assess family influen ce,

especially fathe rs own smoking hab it on cigarett eexperimentation. In such a study, the association

be tween smoking exper imenta t ion and schoolperforma nce, current level of knowledge of the ill effectsof cigarette smoking and the o ther family and non -familyrisk factors may differ from t he re sult of our ana lysis on

current smoking habits. Early experimentation m ay notonly be due to role modelling but also accessibility of cigarettes around th e house.

CONCLUSIONBased on the study findings, we conclude that anysmoking prevention programs or campaigns amongstudents in the ir mid-adolescence should not only focuson the school children themselves but also on adultswithin their own homes especially fathers who arethemselves smokers. Innovative ways of imparting orincreasing parents knowledge of the high likelihood of their own high risk behaviours being followed by theirchildren should be incorporated in such programs.

ACKNOW LEDGEMENT

The au thors thank the Ministry of Education Malaysiafor permission to conduct t he study and special thanksgo to the students who participated in the study and theprincipals and staff of part icipat ing schoo ls for th eir co-operation during the dat a collection. We also thank Cik Rosliza Jajuli for typing the original manuscript.

PDF Smoking

Documents

Transcript of PDF Smoking