Next Article in Journal
Reducing the Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Rehabilitation Hospital under the Guidance of Lean Six Sigma and DMAIC
Previous Article in Journal
Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia and Achalasia-Related Diseases in Patients Aged 75 Years and Over
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 9
Issue 12
10.3390/healthcare9121666
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of Heavy Tobacco Smoking Predictors-Influence of Marijuana Consuming Peers and Truancy among College Students

by
Mihaela-Daiana Popa
1,†,
Abhinav Sharma
2,3,4,†,
Nilima Rajpal Kundnani
4,5,*,
Otilia Lavinia Gag
6,7,
Ciprian Ilie Rosca
4,8,
Valeria Mocanu
9,
Anca Tudor
10,
Ramona Amina Popovici
7,
Brigitha Vlaicu
11 and
Claudia Borza
12
1
Department of Microbiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
3
Department of Occupational Medicine, Municipality Hospital, 310030 Arad, Romania
4
Civil Medical Society Dr Rosca, 307405 Teremia Mare, Romania
5
Department of Functional Sciences, Physiology, Centre of Immuno-Physiology and Biotechnologies (CIFBIOTEH), University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
6
Depatment of Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, ‘Vasile Goldis’ Western University of Arad, 310025 Arad, Romania
7
Discipline of Management, Legislation, and Communication in Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
8
Department of Internal Medicine-Medical Semiotics, Centre for Advanced Research in Cardiovascular Pathology and Hemostasis, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
9
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
10
Department of Functional Science-Biostatistics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
11
Department of Hygiene, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
12
Department of Functional Science-Physiopathology, Center for Translational Research and Systems Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Victor Babes’, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
The authors contribute equally to this paper.
Healthcare 2021, 9(12), 1666; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121666
Submission received: 11 November 2021 / Revised: 20 November 2021 / Accepted: 29 November 2021 / Published: 1 December 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Poorly informed college students tend to adopt the habit of cigarette smoking. This habit often continues into their adulthoods, adversely affecting the population’s health and increasing the burden on healthcare systems. Aim: We aimed at exploring the predictors of the avoidable habit of smoking. We performed an analysis of the correlation between the potential predictors (marijuana use among peers and truancy) and the tobacco smoking statuses of the students. Material and method: Our study sample included 2976 students from colleges in Timis County, Romania, during the 2018–2019 period. The gender distribution of the participants was 62.5% girls and 37.5% boys, between the ages 18 and 25 years. A logistic regression test was performed to determine the impact of some personal and environmental factors, which are responsible for heavy smoking in this population. Results: Our findings suggest that the degree of marijuana smoking among friends and the frequency of college truancy are meaningful predictors of heavy smoking among young adults. The students with higher cigarette smoking rates had significantly more marijuana-smoking friends when compared to the students with average smoking rates. The truancy was higher among the students with higher cigarette smoking rates, compared to the students with average smoking rates.

1. Introduction

Around the world tobacco consumption among young adults has reached epidemic levels, negatively impacting the health of populations and increasing financial burden on the healthcare systems [1,2,3]. The majority of young smokers tend to continue smoking later into their adulthoods. Half of adult smokers die prematurely from a smoking-associated pathology [4,5,6,7,8,9].
Though numerous programs have been implemented to curb smoking and thousands of articles have been written to warn against the use of tobacco, a substantial number of individuals across generations continue using this hazardous product. The use of tobacco usually begins during childhood and adolescence [10,11], with 88% of grown-ups reporting to have initiated smoking before the age of 18 years [12]. Owing to immaturity, college students are considered impressionable, increasing their likelihood of being influenced by the media showing advertisements on tobacco use, which often feature attractive models/movie actors portraying smoking as “cool”. Tobacco dependence remains a serious problem on a global scale. Among the individuals that once tried to smoke, approximately a third will become daily smokers [11]. Smokers trying to stop will succeed around 5% of the time. Even though not all smokers will become addicted to nicotine, the proportion of people diagnosed with nicotine addiction is higher than for any other substance [13,14]. Nicotine belongs to a large class of substances called alkaloids which contain an amine nucleus.
The chemical name of nicotine is (S)-3-(1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl) pyridine, which reflects the existence of two cycles of carbon atoms that also contain nitrogen. In pure form, nicotine is a colorless or slightly yellowish oily fluid. Chemically, nicotine is a base that combines with acids to form water-soluble stable salts. Nicotine is absorbed fastest by cigarette smoke inhalation and the highest arterial blood values are reached within 20 s of inhalation. In body fluids, such as blood, most nicotine molecules are positively charged and that is why they cannot cross cell membranes by themselves. The positive charge is the result of nicotine’s chemical composition—a weak base with a pH of approximately 8.0 [15]. There is, however, a significant proportion of nicotine, about 30%, which travels without any electrical charge, and this form reaches the brain and other target tissues easily. Apart from nicotine, tobacco and cigarette smoke contain certain other ingredients such as Nornicotine and Acetylaldehyde. These ingredients either exert synergistic effects or potentiate the effect of nicotine. Certain active metabolites of nicotine have been noticed to exert strong effects on the central nervous system after acute nicotine administration [16].
Nornicotine is both a metabolite of nicotine and a minor alkaloid in tobacco. At low nornicotine concentrations, nicotine receptor antagonists, such as mecamylamine and [3H]-dihydro-β-eritroidine (DHβE) inhibit S (-)-nornicotine-triggered dopamine release. At high nornicotine doses, this inhibition is absent, indicating that high doses of dopamine release can be triggered by non-selective mechanisms. S (-)-nornicotine, R (+)-nornicotine, and nicotine are all involved in activating the neuronal mechanisms responsible for behavior sensitization [17].
Nicotine is extensively metabolized in the body, mainly in the liver. In humans, there are six primary metabolites [15]. Nicotine is the major component of tobacco and cigarette smoke (approximately 7–8 mg/cigarette). Nicotine can be measured, both in active and passive smokers, in several body fluids including serum, urine, and saliva.
Cotinine, formed as a result of nicotine oxidation by P450 cytochrome, is one of nicotine’s primary metabolites. Having a blood half-life of fewer than two hours, the levels of nicotine concentration in biological fluids can help determine the recentness of exposure. By contrast, Cotinine has a blood or plasma half-life of 15–19 h. An international study, conducted across six countries by Biber et al. [18], compared the analytical results of urine and serum cotinine. The results of the study indicated that both gas chromatography (GC) and RIA (radioimmunoassay) accurately assess the quantities of cotinine in serum and blood samples.
In cancer, a common assessment of the biologically effective dose of nicotine is obtained by measuring the DNA adducts’ levels. Several mutagens and carcinogens are metabolically activated in vivo to electrophilic forms capable of interacting with cellular macromolecules. One of the mechanisms used by the body to fight the electrophilic attack is to conjugate reactive chemical residues with reduced glutathione, which is a nucleophile. This reaction induces an increase in polar thioether conjugates which are excreted from the body through urine and bile. Thioether urine concentrations are used as an unspecific indicator of exposure to alkylating agents. Smoking has been noticed to induce a dose-dependent increase in thioether urine excretion. Chemical substances found in cigarette smoke, excreted in urine as thioethers, include benzene, styrene, and vinyl chloride [19]. High concentrations of alkyl adenines and alkyl guanines from the reaction of alkylating agents with DNA have also been found in the urine of smokers. All three types of carcinogens (thioethers, alkyl adenines, alkyl guanines) reflect the ratio and balance between activation and detoxification [20].
The chemical structure and pharmacology of nicotine qualify it as the drug that creates the strongest addiction. Tobacco products are created to enable nicotine’s fast extraction, absorption, and distribution to the central nervous system. This drug is 5 to 10 times more potent than cocaine or morphine in generating physical and behavioral signs associated with addiction, including pleasure and preference [21]. The development of nicotine addiction depends on the quantity of nicotine that enters the body and its mode of delivery; rapid intake, absorption, and attainment of high plasma concentration increase the potential of creating addiction [22].
The understanding of the consequences of health statuses and pathologies induced by smoking has prompted the scientific foundations to increase awareness on prevention and cessation of both active and passive smoking. In this context, this study aimed at exploring the predictive behaviors/habits suggestive of the degree of tobacco use among young college students, and other elements in their immediate environment that may influence not only the smoker/nonsmoker status but also the smoking intensity.

2. Materials and Methods

Our sample consisted of 2976 college students from different universities within the Timiş County, residing in a typical Romanian urban environment in the academic year 2018–2019. The sample comprised 62.5% girls and 37.5% boys, between the ages of 18 and 25 years. The majority of students were 21 years of age (27.2%). We performed a cross-sectional population test, based on the CORT 2004 inventory which explores hazardous behaviors that impact the health of teenagers and young people alike, conducted during a type A CNCSIS survey [23].
CNCSIS (Consiliul National al Cercetarii Stiintifice din Invatamantul Superior), Romania, is a “national council for scientific research and superior studies” which conducts studies and surveys for research purposes.
The CORT 2004 inventory is a 126-item questionnaire that was to be answered within 60 min. It entailed questions covering health risk behaviors such as nutrition habits, family environment, sexual behaviors, substance use, aggressiveness, physical activity, and depression. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous.
The design of the CORT 2004 inventory was based on the following Romanian and international studies: (a) The American Study Monitoring the Future, (b) The European study ESPAD (The European School Project on Alcohol and Drugs), (c) The American study YRBSS (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System), and (d) The Timis County CAST study (Use of Alcohol, Drugs, and Tobacco).
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical committee, Timisoara, Romania, prior to conducting the survey. Informed consent was obtained from the students prior to their inclusion in the study.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software (version 17, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Comparisons between numerical series were performed with a nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test in case of comparisons between two series of values with non-Gaussian distribution and between more than two groups’ comparisons we applied a Kruskal–Wallis test. Logistic regression was used to identify all potential predictors for the heavy smoker status. For nominal variables, frequency tables were elaborated and the associations between these were achieved by applying the chi2 (χ2) test. We used the value of p < 0.05 for significant differences/associations.

3. Results

3.1. Heavy Smoker Status

A logistic regression test was performed to determine the impact of some personal and environmental factors, on the heavy smoker status (smoking rate increased to more than 10 cigarettes/day) among college students.
The assessment model consisted of 19 independent variables (gender, last school graduated by the father, last school graduated by the mother, satisfaction regarding the family’s financial situation, number of smoking friends, number of friends using alcohol, number of marijuana-smoking friends, the smoking statuses of parents and siblings, number of days the individual skipped school, current educational situation, age of first cigarette, the desire to stop smoking, number of days practicing binge-drinking, marijuana consumption, feelings of sadness, suicidal thoughts, knowledge about adverse effects of smoking). The model containing these predictors are statistically significant (χ2 Test, p < 0.001). Evaluation based on these variables demonstrated that the proposed model can help differentiate between smoking and nonsmoking students. The model used can explain the difference between 21.7% and 30.0% of variations in the heavy smoker status and can accurately classify 73.8% of cases. The most statistically significant predictors were the increased number of marijuana-smoking friends and the frequency with which students skipped college/university (Table 1).

3.2. Marijuana Consumption among Peers

Around 10.8% of friends of nonsmoking students consumed marijuana, while 88.1% had no marijuana-smoking friends. Among the smoking students, 28.1% had marijuana consuming friends, while the remaining 70.8% among the smoking group had no marijuana-smoking friends. Hence, it can be stated that the smoking students had significantly more marijuana-smoking friends (28.1%), compared to the nonsmoking students (10.8%) − χ2.
The masculine gender represents a significant predictor for nonsmokers (the protective factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 0.590, 95% C.I. for OR is (0.350, 0.992)).
The status smoker of the mother (Yes) represents a significant predictor for nonsmokers (the protective factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 0.607, 95%C.I. for OR is (0.373, 0.988)).
The higher number of smoking friends represents a significant predictor for smokers (the risk factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 2.105, 95%C.I. for OR is (1.402, 3.159)).
Additionally, the increased number of marijuana-smoking friends represents a significant predictor for smokers (the risk factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 1.733, 95%C.I. for OR is (1.015, 2.960)).
The higher number of days since individual skipped school represents a significant predictor for smokers (the risk factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 1.468, 95%C.I. for OR is (1.228, 1.754)).
The presence of attempts at stopping smoking represents a significant predictor for smokers (the risk factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 1.763, 95%C.I. for OR is (1.033, 3.008)).
Additionally, the presence of suicidal thoughts represents a significant predictor for smokers (the risk factor for the heavy smoker, OR = 2.184, 95%C.I. for OR is (1.092, 4.370)).
In the smoking students’ category, we found that the smoking intensity is influenced by the number of marijuana-smoking friends (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001).
We found that students with increased smoking rates have significantly more marijuana-smoking friends, compared to students who smoke at an average rate (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.002) and that there’s no difference between students smoking at an average or low rate in terms of the number of marijuana-smoking friends.

3.3. Absenteeism over A Period of 30 Days—“Truancy Percentage”

In the nonsmoking student group, 42.5% did not skip a single day, 26.6% skipped one day, and 21.9% skipped 2 to 4 days. Around 4.3% of the nonsmoking students skipped over a week. In the smoking group, a huge percentage of 29.3%, skipped 2 to 4 days, 21.8% skipped a day and 11.3% skipped over a week.
We found that the smoking student group has skipped significantly more days than the nonsmoking student group (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001—Figure 1).
In the smoking student group, we found that the smoking intensity was influenced by the number of days they have skipped (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001).
We compared the percentage of students in function of the numbers of days they skipped and the smoking intensity with the Kruskall–Wallis Test, and the differences were significant (p = 0.003). We found that the students with higher smoking rates have skipped school significantly more, compared to students with average smoking rates (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001), and that there is no difference between students smoking at an average or low rate in terms of the numbers of skipped days (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

A number of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies [24,25] have shown that the smoking habit of the peers and the perception of that habit is associated with the smoking behavior of the fellow student. Similarity or homogeneity of the tobacco consumption pattern among college students and their friends have led researchers [26,27] to conclude that the environment of the friends influences the smoking habits of the individuals. The most common mechanism reported is social learning [28], through which college students learn about the use of tobacco by observing their smoking friends. Young adults perceive smoking as a means to be socially accepted in a social environment and or cement an apparent social identity. Other mechanisms include peer pressure and the offer of cigarettes and other tobacco products [29].
Several models have been proposed to prevent the initiation of smoking in young adults. Models such as “The Information Deficit Model” that aim at providing information about the adverse health effects of smoking to young students [11,30]. Similarly, “The affective education model” can be used to help students develop social competence and stronger intrapersonal resources. This model is used to increase students’ level of self-esteem and improve their attitudes toward school, community, and family [11]. A third model, known as “The Social Influence Model” mainly focuses on the psychosocial factors related to smoking initiation, e.g., smoking in the immediate environment, peer smoking, and other social psychological factors [31].
Along with addiction, various sociodemographic factors tend to influence a person’s behavior and attitude towards tobacco-free and smoke-free policies. On-campus health promotion initiatives can minimize tobacco use among young adults. However, instituting policies or programs to reduce on-campus smoking is challenging in terms of fighting tobacco companies’ on-campus influence and protests from members of the college community against all indoor and outdoor smoking bans. Policy implementation often encounters a conflict between the agreeing and disagreeing students [32]. Successful implementation of preventive programs and policies entails the resolution of these conflicts to prioritize public interests and avoid social threats [33].
In addition to peer influence, the indicator of school absenteeism can also be used to screen potential student smokers, a finding that was also highlighted by a study conducted in Scotland, in which truant students were found to be twice more likely to become daily smokers [34].

5. Limitations of The Study

The sample size in our study was substantial, and the results are noteworthy. However, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, the associations reported in the study do not reflect causal relationships. Furthermore, due to the limited resources and the focus of our study, we explored just the unidirectionality of the marijuana and tobacco smoking relationship.

6. Conclusions

Our study concluded that marijuana consumption among peers and truancy are powerful predictors of heavy smoking among young students. The findings of our study indicate that smoker students have a significantly higher number of marijuana-smoking friends when compared with non-smoker students. Similarly, heavy-smoker students have a substantially higher number of marijuana smoking friends than average-smoker students. However, no correlation was found between the average or low smoker students and the number of marijuana-smoking friends.
Furthermore, significant truancy was noticed within the smoking student group versus the nonsmoking student group. Students with higher smoking rates skipped significantly more school days, compared to students with average smoking rates. However, no correlation between average or below average smoking students and truancy was found.
Identification of the tobacco smoking habit predictors can help us implement cessation programs and institute early interventions, like providing information about the adverse health effects of cigarette smoking, helping students increase their level of self-esteem, and improve their attitudes toward school, community, and family. Moreover, the use of models that focus on psychosocial factors related to smoking initiation, such as peer smoking and other social and psychological factors can help prevent the influx of new young smokers.

Author Contributions

Methodology, A.T.; validation, N.R.K.; formal analysis, R.A.P.; investigation, M.-D.P. A.S. and O.L.G.; resources, R.A.P.; data curation, C.I.R. and V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, N.R.K. and C.B.; supervision, M.-D.P. B.V. and C.B.; project administration, M.-D.P., N.R.K. and B.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes” Timisoara, 300041, Romania (protocol code 11/18.03.2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Prior to the commencement of the study, ethics approval and written consent was obtained from all the relevant persons and authorities.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kessler, D.A. Nicotine addiction in young people. N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 333, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fagerstrom, K. The epidemiology of smoking: Health consequences and benefits of cessation. Drugs 2002, 62, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Borza, C.; Oancea, C.; Mateescu, R.; Balint-Savoiu, G.; Cristescu, C.; Andoni, M.; Simu, G.; Butur, M.; Dehelea, C.; Pauncu, E.A. Evaluation of the environmental and work risk factors in building-workers. J. Food Agric. Environ. Sect. Health 2011, 9, 175–176. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balint, G.S.; Borza, C.; Cristescu, C.; Andoni, M.; Simu, G.M.; Malita, D.; Malita, I.; Cheveresan, A. Endogenous and exogenous antioxidant protection for endothelial dysfunction. Rev. Chim. 2011, 62, 680–683. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boia, S.; Stratul, Ş.I.; Boariu, M.; Ursoniu, S.; Goţia, S.L.; Boia, E.R.; Borza, C. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity and clinical assessment of patients with chronic periodontitis treated with non-surgical periodontal therapy and adjunctive systemic antibiotherapy. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2018, 59, 1107–1113. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Savoiu, G.; Cristescu, C.; Borza, C. The influence of cigarette smoking on endothelial function. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  7. Savoiu, G.; Cristescu, C.; Serban, C.; Borza, C.; Andoni, M.; Fira-Mladinescu, O.; Chiru, D.; Simu, G.M.; Susan, L.; Mateescu, R. Association between oxidized low-density cholesterol concentration and atherosclerosis. Rev. Rom. Lab. 2009, 15, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  8. Savoiu, G.; Cristescu, C.; Borza, C.; Serban, C.; Noveanu, L.; Dehelean, C.; Andoni, M.; Andor, M.; Fira-Mladinescu, O. Endothelin-1 plasma concentration in patients with essential hypertension, atherogenic dyslipidemia and coronary artery disease. Rev. Rom. Med. Lab. 2010, 18, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  9. Balint, G.S.; Toth, E.; Andoni, M.; Demeter, I.; Borza, C.; Floroni, E.; Pacurar, M.; Ciobanu, V. Study on the influence of free radicals and oxidative stress on Peptic Ulcers. Rev. Chim. 2019, 70, 3254–3257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Doll, R.; Peto, R.; Boreham, J.; Sutherland, I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004, 328, 1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. CDC. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People—A Report of the Surgeon General. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030927.htm (accessed on 11 March 1994).
  12. Steinberg, L. Risk taking in adolescence: What changes, and why? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2004, 1021, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. CDC. Reasons for Tobacco Use and Symptoms of Nicotine Withdrawal among Adolescent and Young Adult Tobacco Users—United States, 1993, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1994. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4341.pdf (accessed on 21 October 1994).
  14. Dalton, M.A.; Beach, M.L.; Adachi-Mejia, A.M.; Longacre, M.R.; Matzkin, A.L.; Sargent, J.D.; Heatherton, T.F.; Titus-Ernstoff, L. Early exposure to movie smoking predicts established smoking by older teens and young adults. Pediatrics 2009, 123, e551–e558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Rose, J.; Rose, E.J.; Behm, F.M.; Westman, E.C.; Coleman, R. Arterial nicotine kinetics during cigarette smoking and intravenous nicotine administration: Implications for addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999, 56, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Crooks, P.A.; Dwoskin, L.P. Contribution of CNS nicotine metabolites to the neuropharmacological effects of nicotine and tobacco smoking. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1997, 54, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dwoskin, L.P.; Teng, L.H.; Crooks, P.A. Nornicotine, a nicotine metabolite and tobacco alkaloid: Desensitization of nicotinic receptor-stimulated dopamine release from rat striatum. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2001, 428, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. CDC. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Health, Bethesda. Available online: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-10 (accessed on 24 September 2020).
  19. Fischer, B. Unraveling smoke: As cigarette makers face new challenges, the pressure to understand tobacco smoke is greater than ever. Tob. Rep. 2000, 127, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hecht, S.S. Tobacco carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003, 3, 733–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Benowitz, N.L.; Perez-Stable, E.J.; Fong, I.; Modin, G.; Herrera, B.; Jacob, P. Ethnic differences in N-glucuronidation of nicotine and cotinine. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1999, 291, 1196–1203. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stitzer, M.; De Wit, H. Abuse liability of nicotine. In Nicotine Safety and Toxicity; Benowitz, N.L., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 119–131. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vlaicu, B. Comportamente cu Risc la Studenții din Județul Timiș; Editura Eurobit: Timișoara, București, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alesci, N.L.; Forster, J.L.; Blaine, T. Smoking visibility, perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations among youth and adults. Prev. Med. 2003, 36, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ali, M.M.; Dwyer, D.S. Estimating peer effects in adolescent smoking behavior: A longitudinal analysis. J. Adolesc. Health 2009, 45, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arnett, J.J. The myth of peer influence in adolescent smoking initiation. Health Educ. Behav. 2006, 34, 594–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kobus, K. Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction 2003, 98, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Petraitis, J.; Flay, B.; Miller, T.Q. Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. West, P.; Sweeting, H.; Young, R. Smoking in Scottish youths: Personal income, parental social class and the cost of smoking. Tob. Control. 2007, 16, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rosca, C.I.; Kundnani, N.R.; Tudor, A.; Rosca, M.S.; Nicoras, V.A.; Otiman, G.; Ciurariu, E.; Ionescu, A.; Stelian, M.; Sharma, A.; et al. Benefits of prescribing low-dose digoxin in atrial fibrillation. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20587384211051955 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  31. National Cancer Institute. Strategies to Control Tobacco Use in United States: A Blue-Print for Public Health Action in the 1990’s. Available online: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-01 (accessed on 1 December 1990).
  32. Dilliott, D.; Fazel, S.; Ehsan, N.; Sibbald, S.L. The attitudes and behaviors of students, staff and faculty towards smoke-free and tobacco-free campus policies in North American universities: A narrative review. Tob. Prev. Cessat. 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, C.; Hong, L.; Ma, N.; Sun, G. Logic analysis of how the emergency management legal system used to deal with public emerging infectious diseases under balancing of competing interests—The case of COVID-19. Healthcare 2021, 9, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. NHS. Smoking, Survey of Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People in England. Available online: https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/survey-of-smoking,-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england/ (accessed on 20 December 2014).
Healthcare 09 01666 g001 550
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of students in function of the number of days skipped and smoking.
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of students in function of the number of days skipped and smoking.
Healthcare 09 01666 g001
Healthcare 09 01666 g002 550
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of smoking students as a function of the numbers of days they skipped and the smoking intensity.
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of smoking students as a function of the numbers of days they skipped and the smoking intensity.
Healthcare 09 01666 g002
Table
Table 1. Logistic regression to determine the heavy smoker status of college students using smoking as a dependent variable.
Table 1. Logistic regression to determine the heavy smoker status of college students using smoking as a dependent variable.
Variables in the EquationBS.E.WalddfSig.Exp(B)95% C.I. for EXP(B)
LowerUpper
Sex (M)−0.5280.2663.9510.047 *0.5900.3500.992
Last graduated school of the father−0.1160.1280.8310.3620.8900.6931.143
Last graduated school of the mother−0.0560.1340.1710.6740.9450.7271.229
Satisfaction regarding the family’s financial situation−0.1170.1230.9010.3420.8900.6991.133
Smoking status of the father (Yes)−0.1230.2390.2610.6060.8840.5541.412
Smoking status of the mother (Yes)−0.4990.2484.0410.044 *0.6070.3730.988
Smoking status of brothers and sisters (Yes)0.0770.2360.1010.7431.0800.6811.714
Number of smoking friends0.7440.20712.891<0.001 *2.1051.4023.159
Number of friends becoming drunk0.3130.1842.8810.0891.3670.9531.961
Number of marijuana-smoking friends0.5500.2734.0510.044 *1.7331.0152.960
Number of days since individual skipped school0.3840.09117.811<0.001 *1.4681.2281.754
Education situation at the end of last semester0.1770.1451.4710.2241.1930.8971.586
Age of first cigarette0.1350.1181.3010.2541.1440.9081.442
Attempts at stopping smoking0.5670.2734.3210.038 *1.7631.0333.008
Number of days practicing binge-drinking0.1370.1071.6310.2011.1470.9301.414
Marijuana consumption−0.0370.3190.0110.9070.9640.5151.802
Feelings of sadness0.2640.2740.9310.3341.3030.7622.227
Suicidal thoughts0.7810.3544.8710.027 *2.1841.0924.370
Knowledge about smoking effects (Yes)−0.1650.2820.3410.5570.8470.4881.472
Constants−3.3000.83515.6310.0000.037
* significant predictor.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popa, M.-D.; Sharma, A.; Kundnani, N.R.; Gag, O.L.; Rosca, C.I.; Mocanu, V.; Tudor, A.; Popovici, R.A.; Vlaicu, B.; Borza, C. Identification of Heavy Tobacco Smoking Predictors-Influence of Marijuana Consuming Peers and Truancy among College Students. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121666

AMA Style

Popa M-D, Sharma A, Kundnani NR, Gag OL, Rosca CI, Mocanu V, Tudor A, Popovici RA, Vlaicu B, Borza C. Identification of Heavy Tobacco Smoking Predictors-Influence of Marijuana Consuming Peers and Truancy among College Students. Healthcare. 2021; 9(12):1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121666

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popa, Mihaela-Daiana, Abhinav Sharma, Nilima Rajpal Kundnani, Otilia Lavinia Gag, Ciprian Ilie Rosca, Valeria Mocanu, Anca Tudor, Ramona Amina Popovici, Brigitha Vlaicu, and Claudia Borza. 2021. "Identification of Heavy Tobacco Smoking Predictors-Influence of Marijuana Consuming Peers and Truancy among College Students" Healthcare 9, no. 12: 1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121666

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop