appendices - ars.els-cdn.com · appendix predictors of the onset of cigarette smoking: a systematic...

Appendix

Predictors of the Onset of Cigarette Smoking: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal

Population-Based Studies in Youth

Wellman et al.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Appendices

Appendix 1. Titles excluded after full-text review (n=87).

Appendix 2. Characteristics of 53 included studies.

Appendix 3. Detailed summary of results from 53 longitudinal studies of 98 conceptually distinct

potential predictors of smoking onset in adolescents.

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Appendix 1. Titles excluded after full-text review (n=87).

A. Excluded because analyses included participants age 18 years or older with no sub-

analyses for younger adolescents (n=31).

1. Beal SJ, Negriff S, Dorn LD, et al. Longitudinal associations between smoking and

depressive symptoms among adolescent girls. Prev Sci. 2014;15(4):506-515.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0402-x.

2. Bricker JB, Peterson AV, Anderson MR, et al. Childhood friends who smoke: do they

influence adolescents to make smoking transitions? Addict Behav. 2006;31(5):889-900.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.07.011.

3. Bricker JB, Peterson, AV, Anderson, MR, et al. Parents’ and older siblings’ smoking during

childhood: changing influences on smoking acquisition and escalation over the course of

adolescence. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9(9):915-926.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701488400.

4. Bricker JB, Peterson, AV, Leroux BG, et al. Prospective prediction of children’s smoking

transitions: role of parents’ and older siblings’ smoking. Addiction. 2006;101(1):128-136.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01297.x.

5. Bricker JB, Peterson AV, Sarason IG, Anderson MR, Rajan KB. Changes in the influence of

parents’ and close friends’ smoking on adolescent smoking transitions. Addict Behav.

2007;32(4):740-757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.020.

6. Cawley J, Markowitz S, Tauras J. Lighting up and slimming down: the effects of body

weight and cigarette prices on adolescent smoking initiation. J Health Econ. 2004;23(2):293-

231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.12.003.

7. Cin SD, Stoolmiller M, Sargent JD. Exposure to smoking in movies and smoking initiation

among black youth. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):345-350.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.12.008.

8. Colell E, Sánchez-Niubò A, Domingo-Salvany A. Sex differences in the cumulative

incidence of substance use by birth cohort. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(4):319-325.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.006.

9. Corliss HL, Wadler BM, Jun HJ, et al. Sexual-orientation disparities in cigarette smoking in a

longitudinal cohort study of adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;15(1):213-222.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts114.

10. Den Exter Blockland EAW, Engels RC, Harakeh Z, Hale WW, Meeus W. If parents establish

a no smoking agreement with their offspring, does this prevent adolescents from smoking?

Findings from three Dutch studies. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36(4):759-776.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198108330000.

11. Distefan JM, Gilpin EA, Choi WS, Pierce JP. Parental influences predict adolescent smoking

in the United States, 1989–1993. J Adolesc Health. 1998;22(6):466-474.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(98)00013-5.

12. D’Onofrio BM, Rickert ME, Langstrom N, et al. Familial confounding of the association

between maternal smoking during pregnancy and offspring substance use and problems. Arch

Gen Psychiatry. 2012; 69(11):1140-1150.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2107.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0402-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.07.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701488400

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01297.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.12.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.12.008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts114

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198108330000

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(98)00013-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2107

Appendix



Wellman et al.


13. Edelen MO, Tucker JS, Ellickson PL. A discrete time hazards model of smoking initiation

among West Coast youth from age 5 to 23. Prev Med. 2007;44(1):52-54.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.09.004.

14. Farrelly MC, Kamyab K, Nonnemaker J, Crankshaw E, Allen JA. Movie smoking and youth

initiation: parsing smoking imagery and other adult content. PLoS ONE. 2012:7(12);e51935.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051935.

15. Galanti MR, Rosendahl I, Wickholm S. The development of tobacco use in adolescence

among ‘‘snus starters’’ and ‘‘cigarette starters’’: an analysis of the Swedish ‘‘BROMS’’

cohort. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(2):315-323.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701825858. (This study also lacked tests of statistical

significance in regard to smoking initiation [see criterion F].)

16. Galéra C, Fombonne E, Chastang JF, Bouvard M. Childhood hyperactivity-inattention

symptoms and smoking in adolescence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78(1):101-108.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.10.003.

17. Gilpin EA, Emery S, White MM, Pierce JP. Changes in youth smoking participation in

California in the 1990s. Cancer Cause Control. 2003;14(10):985-993.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:caco.0000007971.36237.a5.

18. Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP. Does adolescent perception of difficulty in getting cigarettes

deter experimentation? Prev Med. 2004;38(4):485-491.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.001.

19. Griesler PC, Kandel DB, Davies M. Ethnic differences in predictors of initiation and

persistence of adolescent cigarette smoking in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(1):79-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200110103197.

20. Gritz ER, Prokhorov A, Hudmon KS, et al. Predictors of susceptibility to smoking and ever

smoking: a longitudinal study in triethnic sample of adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res.

2003;5(4):493-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200307242.

21. Guo Q, Unger JB, Azen SP, MacKinnon DP, Johnson A. Do cognitive attributions for

smoking predict subsequent smoking development? Addict Behav. 2012;37(3):273-279.


22. Hamilton VH, Levinton C, St-Pierre Y, Grimard F. The effect of tobacco tax cuts on

cigarette smoking in Canada. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;156(2):187-191.

23. Harakeh Z, Engels RCME, Monshouwer K, Hanssen PF. Adolescents’ weight concerns and

the onset of smoking. Subst Use Misuse. 2010;45(12):1847-1860.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826081003682149.

24. Harakeh Z, Scholte RHJ, de Vries H, Engels RCME. Association between personality and

adolescent smoking. Addict Behav. 2006;31(2):232-245.


25. Hiemstra M, Engels RCME, Barker ED, van Schayck OCP, Otten R. Smoking-specific

parenting and smoking onset in adolescence: the role of genes from the dopaminergic system

(DRD2, DRD4, DAT1 genotypes). PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61673.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061673.

26. Kennedy DP, Tucker JS, Pollard MS, Go MH, Green HD. Adolescent romantic relationships

and change in smoking status. Addict Behav. 2011;36(4):320-326.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.09.004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051935

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701825858

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.10.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:caco.0000007971.36237.a5


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200110103197

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200307242


http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826081003682149


http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061673


Appendix



Wellman et al.


27. Morgenstern M, Sargent JD, Engels RCME, et al. Smoking in movies and adolescent

smoking initiation: longitudinal study in six European countries. Am J Prev Med.

2013;44(4):339-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.037.

28. Otten R, Engels RCME, van den Eijnden RJJM. General parenting, anti-smoking

socialization and smoking onset. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(5):859-869.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cym073.

29. Patton GC, Carlin JB, Coffey C, et al. Depression, anxiety, and smoking initiation: a

prospective study over 3 years. Am J Public Health. 1998:88(10):1518-1522.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.88.10.1518.

30. Richardson CG, Kwon JY, Ratner PA. Self-esteem and the initiation of substance use among

adolescents. Can J Public Health. 2013;104(1):e60-e63.

31. Swan AV, Creeser R, Murray M. When and why children first start to smoke. Int J

Epidemiol. 1990;19(2):323-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/19.2.323.

B. Excluded because baseline ever smokers were not clearly excluded from the analyses

(n=13).

1. Bricker JB, Anderson MR, Rajan KH, Sarason IG, Peterson AV. The role of schoolmates’

smoking and non-smoking in adolescents’ smoking transitions: a longitudinal study.

Addiction. 2007;102(10):1665-1675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01945.x.

2. Cornelius MD, Leech SL, Goldschmidt L, Day NL. Is prenatal tobacco exposure a risk factor

for early adolescent smoking? A follow-up study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005;27(4):667-676.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2005.05.006.

3. Cornelius MD, Leech SL, Lidu L. Prenatal tobacco exposure: is it a risk factor for early

tobacco experimentation? Nicotine Tob Res. 2000;2(1):45-52.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200050011295.

4. De Vries H, Engels R, Kremers S, Wetzels J, Mudde A. Parents' and friends' smoking status

as predictors of smoking onset: findings from six European countries. Health Educ Res.

2003;18(5):627-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg032.

5. Dinh KT, Sarason IG, Peterson AV, Onstad LE. Children's perceptions of smokers and

nonsmokers: a longitudinal study. Health Psychol. 1995;14(1):32-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.14.1.32.

6. Engels RCME, Hale WW, Noom M, de Vries H. Self-efficacy and emotional adjustment as

precursors of smoking in early adolescence. Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40(12):1883-1893.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826080500259612.

7. Epstein JA, Griffin KW, Botvin GJ. Competence skills help deter smoking among inner city

adolescents. Tob Control. 2000;9(1):33-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.9.1.33.

8. Finkelstein DM, Kubzansky LD, Goodman E. Social status, stress, and adolescent smoking. J

Adolesc Health. 2006;39(5):678-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.011.

9. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Benthin AC, Hessling RM. A longitudinal study of the reciprocal

nature of risk behaviors and cognitions in adolescents: what you do shapes what you think,

and vice versa. Health Psychol. 1996;15(5):344-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-

6133.15.5.344.

10. Hagger-Johnson G, Bell S, Britton A, et al. Cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking in a

representative sample of English school pupils: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations.

Prev Med. 2013;56(5):304-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.02.004.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.037

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cym073

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.88.10.1518

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/19.2.323

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01945.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2005.05.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200050011295

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg032

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.14.1.32

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826080500259612

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.9.1.33

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.344

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.344


Appendix



Wellman et al.


11. Hampson SE, Andrews JA, Barckley M. Predictors of the development of elementary-school

children’s intentions to smoke cigarettes: hostility, prototypes, and subjective norms.

Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9(7):751-760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701397908.

12. Hedman L, Bjerg-Backlund A, Perzanowski M, Sundberg S, Ronmark E. Factors related to

tobacco use among teenagers. Respir Med. 2007;101(3):496-502.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.07.001. (This study also included both intervention

and control groups in analysis [see criterion D].)

13. Taylor AE, Howe LD, Heron JE, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and offspring

smoking initiation: assessing the role of intrauterine exposure. Addiction. 2014;109(6):1013-

1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.12514.

C. Excluded because the outcome measure(s) did not clearly differentiate those who had

initiated versus those who had not initiated (e.g., past-term smoking, current weekly versus

less-than-weekly smoking, or current smoking) (n=22).

1. Bailey JA, Hill KG, Oesterle S, Hawkins JD. Linking substance use and problem behavior

across three generations. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006;34(3):273-292.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9033-z.

2. Barber P, González López-Valcárcel B, Pinilla J, et al. Attitudes of teenagers towards

cigarettes and smoking initiation. Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40(5):625-643.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ja-200055352.

3. Conner M, McEachan R, Jackson C, et al. Moderating effect of socioeconomic status on the

relationship between health cognitions and behaviors. Ann Behav Med .2013;46(1):19-30.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9481-y. (This study also included both control and

intervention groups [see criterion D].)

4. Cronley C, White HR, Mun EY, et al. Exploring the intersection of neighborhood racial and

economic composition and individual race on substance use among male adolescents. J Ethn

Subst Abuse. 2012;11(1):52-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2012.652526.

5. Duan L, Chou CP, Andreeva VA, Pentz MA. Trajectories of peer social influences as long-

term predictors of drug use from early through late adolescence. J Youth Adolescence.

2009;38(3):454-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9310-y.

6. Ellikson PL, Hays RD, Bell RM. Stepping through the drug use sequence: longitudinal

scalogram analysis of initiation and regular use. J Abnorm Psychol. 1992;101(3):441-451.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.101.3.441.

7. Ellickson PL, Mcguigan KA, Klein DJ. Predictors of late-onset smoking and cessation over

10 years. J Adolesc Health 2001;29(2):101-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-

139x(00)00199-3.

8. Felton G, Parsons MA, Ward DS, et al. Tracking of avoidance of alcohol use and smoking

behavior in a fifth grade cohort over three years. Public Health Nurs. 1999;16(1):32-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.1999.00032.x.

9. Fidler JA, West R, Jarvis MJ, Wardle J. Early dating predicts smoking during adolescence: a

prospective study. Addiction. 2006;101(12):1805-1813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-

0443.2006.01613.x.

10. Field AE, Austin SB, Frazier AL, et al. Smoking, getting drunk, and engaging in bulimic

behaviors: in what order are the behaviors adopted? J Am Acad Child Psychiatry.

2002;41(7):846-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200207000-00018.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701397908

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.07.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.12514

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9033-z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ja-200055352

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9481-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2012.652526

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9310-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.101.3.441

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00199-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00199-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.1999.00032.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01613.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01613.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200207000-00018

Appendix



Wellman et al.


11. Fleming CB, Mason WA, Mazza JJ, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Latent growth modeling of the

relationship between depressive symptoms and substance use during adolescence. Psychol

Addict Behav. 2008;22(2):186-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.22.2.186.

12. Flory K, Malone PS, Lamis DA. Childhood ADHD symptoms and risk for cigarette smoking

during adolescence: school adjustment as a potential mediator. Psychol Addict Behav.

2011;25(2):320-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022633.

13. Foshee VA, Reyes HLM, Gottfredson NC. Change LY, Ennett ST. A longitudinal

examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating

abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents. J Adolesc Health.

2013;53(6):723-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.016.

14. Gidwani PP, Sobol A, DeJong W, Perrin JM, Gortmaker SL. Television viewing and

initiation of smoking among youth. Pediatrics. 2002;110(3); 505-508.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.3.505.

15. Giordano GN, Lindström M. The impact of social capital on changes in smoking behaviour:

a longitudinal cohort study. Eur J Public Health. 2010;21(3):347-354.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckq048.

16. Glendinning A, Shucksmith J, Hendry L. Social class and adolescent smoking behaviour. Soc

Sci Med. 1994;38(10):1449-1460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90283-6.

17. Go MH, Green Jr HD, Kennedy DP, Pollard M, Tucker JS. Peer influence and selection

effects on adolescent smoking. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;109(1-3):239-242.


18. Go MH, Tucker JS, Green HD, Pollard M, Kennedy D. Social distance and homophily in

adolescent smoking initiation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124(3):347-354.


19. Goldade K, Choi K, Bernat DH, et al. Multilevel predictors of smoking initiation among

adolescents: findings from the Minnesota Adolescent Community Cohort (MACC) study.

Prev Med. 2012;54(3-4):242-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.029.

20. Green HD Jr, Horta M, Haye KDI, et al. Peer influence and selection processes in adolescent

smoking behavior: a comparative study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(2):534-541.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts191.

21. Grogan S, Conner M, Fry G, Gough B, Higgins A. Gender differences in smoking: a

longitudinal study of beliefs predicting smoking in 11-15 year olds. Psychol Health.

2009;24(3):301-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440701746586.

22. Simon TR, Sussman S, Dent CW, Burton D, Flay BR. Prospective correlates of exclusive or

combined adolescent use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Addict Behav. 1995;20(4):517-

524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00004-v.

D. Excluded because study tested an intervention and both control and intervention groups

were included in the analyses without a clear statement that the intervention did not affect

smoking (n=10).

1. Bertrand LD, Abernathy TJ. Predicting cigarette smoking among adolescents using cross-

sectional and longitudinal approaches. J Sch Health. 1993;63(2):98-103.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1993.tb06088.x.

2. Crawford AM, Pentz MA, Chou CP, Li C, Dwyer JH. Parallel developmental trajectories of

sensation seeking and regular substance use in adolescents. Psychol Addict Behav.

2003;17(3):179-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.17.3.179.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.22.2.186

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022633


http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.3.505

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckq048

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90283-6




http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts191

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440701746586

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00004-v

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1993.tb06088.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.17.3.179

Appendix



Wellman et al.


3. Fujimoto K, Unger JB, Valente TW. A network method of measuring affiliation-based peer

influence: assessing the influences of teammates’ smoking on adolescent smoking. Child

Dev. 2012;83(2):442-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01729.x.

4. Lippold MA, Greenberg MT, Collins LM. Youths' substance use and changes in parental

knowledge-related behaviors during middle school: a person-oriented approach. J Youth

Adolescence. 2013;43(5):729-744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0010-x.

5. Pierce JP, Messer K, James LE, et al. Camel No. 9 cigarette-marketing campaign targeted

young teenaged girls. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):619-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-

0607.

6. Slater MD, Henry KL. Prospective influence of music-related media exposure on adolescent

substance-use initiation: a peer group mediation model. J Health Commun. 2013;18(3):291-

305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.727959.

7. Tang KC, Rissel C, Bauman A, et al. A longitudinal study of smoking in year 7 and 8

students speaking English or a language other than English at home in Sydney, Australia.

Tob Control. 1998;7(1):35-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.7.1.35.

8. Unger JB, Johnson CA, Stoddard JL, Nezami E, Chih-Ping C. Identification of adolescents at

risk for smoking initiation: validation of a measure of susceptibility. Addict Behav.

1997;22(1):81-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00107-7.

9. Weiss JW, Mouttapa M, Cen S, Johnson CA, Unger J. Longitudinal effects of hostility,

depression, and bullying on adolescent smoking initiation. J Adolesc Health. 2011;48(6):591-

596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.09.012.

10. Wu LT, Anthony JC. Tobacco smoking and depressed mood in late childhood and early

adolescence. Am J Public Health. 1999:89(12);1837-1840.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.12.1837.

E. Excluded because the analyses were not entirely longitudinal (i.e., variables measured at

the same time point as the outcome were used to predict the outcome) (n=2).

1. Carvajal SC, Granillo TM. A prospective test of distal and proximal determinants of smoking

initiation in early adolescents. Addict Behav. 2006;31(4):649-660.


2. Wills TA, Sargent JD, Stoolmiller M, Gibbons FX, Gerard M. Movie smoking exposure and

smoking onset: a longitudinal study of mediation processes in a representative sample of U.S.

adolescents. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22(2):269-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-

164x.22.2.269.

F. Excluded for other methodological reasons (n=9). 1. Bricker JB, Rajan KB, Zalweski M, et al Psychological and social risk factors in adolescent

smoking transitions: a population-based longitudinal study. Health Psychol. 2009;28(4):439-

447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014568. (Measures of statistical significance or effect are

not reported for specific predictors.)

2. Epstein JA, Bang H, Botvin GJ. Which psychosocial factors moderate or directly affect

substance use among inner-city adolescents? Addict Behav. 2007;32(4):700-713.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.011. (The outcome is intention to smoke, not

initiation.)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01729.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0010-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0607


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.727959

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.7.1.35

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00107-7


http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.12.1837


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.22.2.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.22.2.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014568


Appendix



Wellman et al.


3. Epstein JA, Botvin GJ, Diaz T. Linguistic acculturation associated with higher marijuana and

polydrug use among Hispanic adolescents. Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36(4):477-499.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ja-100102638. (Does not investigate initiation of smoking.)

4. Fleming CB, Kim H, Harachi TW, Catalano RF. Family processes for children in early

elementary school as predictors of smoking initiation. J Adolesc Health. 2002; 30(3):184-

189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(01)00327-5. (Smoking status was not assessed.)

5. Galéra C, Bouvard MP, Melchior M, et al. Disruptive symptoms in childhood and

adolescence and early initiation of tobacco and cannabis use: the Gazel Youth study. Eur

Psychiatry. 2010;25(7):402-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.06.002. (The

assessment of smoking initiation was retrospective.)

6. Mohammadpoorasl A, Fakhari A, Shamsipour M, Rostami F, Rashidian H. Transitions

between the stages of smoking in Iranian adolescents. Prev Med. 2011;52(2):136-138.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.11.024. (The outcome is rates of transition, not

initiation.)

7. Sargent JD, Tanski S, Stoolmiller M. Influence of motion picture rating on adolescent

response to movie smoking. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):228-236.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1787. (The outcome is time to a first puff, not whether

the puff is taken.)

8. Sussman S, Dent CW, Flay BR, Hansen WB, Johnson CA. Psychosocial predictors of

cigarette smoking onset by white, black, Hispanic, and Asian adolescents in Southern

California. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1987;36(Suppl 4):11S-16S. (Measures of

statistical significance and/or confidence intervals were not reported.)

9. Wilkinson AV, Spitz MR, Prokhorov AV, et al. Exposure to smoking imagery in the movies

and experimenting with cigarettes among Mexican heritage youth. Cancer Epidemiol

Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(12):3435-3443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-09-0766.

(Measures of smoking exposure were not available at baseline.)

Note: Studies rejected for more than one reason (n=3) are listed only in the first category for

which they qualify.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ja-100102638

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(01)00327-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.06.002


http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-09-0766

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Appendix 2. Characteristics of 53 Included Studies

Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Albers

200834

U.S.

2001-2002 to

2005-2006

12-17

years

2 & 4

years

R

State-

wide

house-

hold

3,834 2 yrs: 2,481

4 yrs: 1,628

(restricted to

youth in

parental

homes)

2 yrs: 73%

4 yrs: 58%

No attrition

analysis

reported

Baseline

survey

weights

adjusted by a

raking

procedure to

control for

biased

attrition

Hierarchical

logistic regression

accounted for

clustering within

individuals and by

town. Stratified by

living with

smokers (no/yes).

Adjusted for age,

sex, race,

informant

education,

household income,

close friend

smokes, 4-yr

follow-up

(no/yes), 3 town-

level covariates.

Aloise-

Young

199635A

U.S.

1991-1992 to

1992-1993

Fifth-

Eighth

grades

1 year C

School

2,618 1,222 87% of

1,413

baseline

never

smokers

provided

baseline

data on

predictors

Attrition

analysis on

main

predictor

No

information

on missing

data

Maximum

likelihood log-

linear ANOVA

with sex, ethnicity,

self-enhancement

risk index and self-

consistency risk

index as factors

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Aloise-

Young

200536A

U.S.

Not reported

Sixth-

Eighth

grades

8 months C

School

1,938 1,085

baseline

nonsmokers

84% Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

Maximum

likelihood log-

linear ANOVA

with sex, ethnicity,

grade and

socioeconomic

status as factors

Bauman

200137

U.S.

1994-1995 to

1995-1996

Middle

school

through

Eleventh

grade -

seniors

excluded

1 year R

School

12,105

9,884

eligible for

inclusion in

analyses

3,634

baseline

never

smokers

83.7% of

eligible

participants

No attrition

analysis

reported

Complete

case analysis

Hierarchical

logistic regression

with stratification

by whether parents

or friends smoke

Percentages were

weighted “to

account for sample

stratification of

schools on region,

urbanicity, school

type, ethnic mix

and size.” CIs

were adjusted for

clustering.

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Bidstrup

200938

Denmark

2004 to 2006

13 years

Seventh

grade

6 & 18

months

R

School

2,178 6 months:

912

18 months:

442

6 months:

42%

18 months:

56% of 793

eligible

Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multi-level logistic

regression adjusted

for school, school

class, sex, family

religiousness,

living with one

parent, liking

school, and all

other predictors of

interest

Bohnert

200939

U.S.

1983-1985 to

2000-2002

Newbor

n

11 years

for

current

analyses

17 years

6 years

(ages 11-

17) for

current

analyses

R

Hospital

records

from

region

of 1

state

823

newborns

572 never

smokers @

age 11

657 (80%)

throughout

follow-up

Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multiple logistic

regression adjusted

for sex, ethnicity,

urban vs.

suburban,

mother’s

education, single

vs. married

mother, mother’s

smoking history,

friend who

smoked, friend

who drank

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Chang

201140

Taiwan

2001 to 2008

9-10

years

Fourth

grade

8 years -

annual

follow-up

R

School

2,686 2,686 before

censoring

“>67%”

reported by

authors (no

N reported)

No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Survival analysis

using accelerated

lifetime model to

assess time to

initiation

Multivariate

analysis adjusted

for sex, urban vs.

rural, and all other

predictors of

interest

Dalton

200341B

U.S.

1999 to 2001

10-14

years

Fifth

grade

13-26

months

R

School

3,547 2,603 73% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Generalized linear

models with log-

link. 2 models: (1)

adjusted for age,

sex & school; (2)

adjusted also for

social influences,

parent

characteristics and

time to follow-up

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

D’Amico

200642

U.S.

10-15

years

Sixth-

Eighth

grades

6 months C

School

1,527 974 overall;

877 for

analysis of

smoking

initiation

70%

Participants

were

matched at

times 1 & 2

using

unique

identifiers.

1,438

matched at

both time

points

Attrition

analysis for

matched &

unmatched

participants

Hot deck

imputation for

continuous

variables. No

imputation for

age, grade,

ethnicity, and

substance use.

Logistic regression

adjusted for

ethnicity, sex, and

grade

Den Exter

Blokland

200643C

Netherlands

2000 to 2001

10-14

years

1 year C

School

718 600 83.6%

118

families

excluded

because

child

absent

when data

were

collected

Attrition

analysis on

parental data

from families

with/without

child’s data

No

information

on missing

data

Multivariate

logistic regression;

covariates not

reported

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Den Exter

Blokland

200744C

Netherlands

2000 to 2001

11-14

years

6 months

and 1 year

C

School

1,209 1,012 83.7% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, educational

level, parental

smoking status,

single- or 2-parent

family

Distfan

200445D

U.S.

1996 to 1999

12-15

years

3 years R

State-

wide

house-

hold

3,104 2,084 67% Attrition

analysis

Percentages

were

weighted and

adjusted for

sampling

design and

nonresponse.

ORs were

weighted.

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity, and

school

performance, as

well as all other

predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Doubeni

200846

U.S.

2002 to 2006

Sixth

grade

4 years:

11 waves

@ 3-

month

intervals

C

School

1,246 1,027

baseline

never

smokers

100% No attrition

analysis

reported

Last

observation

carried

forward for

missing

covariates

Cox proportional

hazards model

stratified by city of

residence, adjusted

for age, sex,

parental smoking,

perceived parental

approval of

smoking, and

anger coping

Engels

200447C

Netherlands

2000 to 2001

10-14

years

6 months

& 1 year

C

School

1,969 1,595 81% No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Prospective

logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex and

educational level

Galanti

200148E

Sweden

1997-1998 to

1998-1999

Fifth

grade

1 year C

School

3,019 2,883 95.5% No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

(univariate)

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Gilpin

200549D

U.S.

1993 to1996

and 1996 to

1999

12-15

years

3 years

each (2

cohorts)

R

State-

wide

house-

hold

1993 cohort:

5,531

1996 cohort:

6,252

1993 cohort:

1,764

1996 cohort:

2,119

1993: 65%

of 2,714

baseline

never

smokers

1996: 67%

of 3,163

baseline

never

smokers

No attrition

analysis

reported

Jackknife

procedure to

produce

variance

estimates

Percentages

and CIs

weighted

Separate logistic

regression with

each cohort

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity, and

susceptibility to

smoking

Hanewinkel

201150

Germany

2005 to 2006

10-17

years

9 months R

School

3,415 2,102 89.6% of

2,346

baseline

never

smokers

Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multi-level mixed

effects Poisson

regression adjusted

for age, sex, SES,

state, friends’ &

parents’ smoking,

and all other

predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Hanewinkel,

Morgenstern

200851F

Germany

2005 to 2006

10-16

years

12-13

months

R

School

2,315

baseline

never

smokers

2,110 87.3%

n=2,315

205

additional

surveys

(8.9%)

removed

for missing

data on any

variable

Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

General linear

models with log

link and clustered

robust SEs

adjusted for: age,

sex, SES, friends’,

siblings’ &

parents’ smoking,

& all other

predictors of

interest

Hanewinkel,

Sargent

200852F

Germany

2005 to 2006

10-16

years

1 year R

School

3,313

baseline

never

smokers

2,711 86.4%

n=2,864

153

additional

surveys

removed

for missing

data on any

variable

Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

General linear

models with log

link and clustered

robust SEs

adjusted for: age,

sex, SES, friends’,

siblings’ &

parents’ smoking,

& all other

predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Harakeh

201253

Netherlands

2001-2002 to

2005-2007

11 years 2.5 & 4.5

years

R

School

Included

90% of

eligible

youth in

region

2,230 1,640

Complete

measures at

all 3 waves

and not

outliers on

neuro-

cognitive

measures

96% at

time 2

81.4% at

time 3

Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

Logistic regression

adjusted for sex,

age, SES, &

baseline speed in

attention task

Harakeh

200454C

Netherlands

2000 to 2001

10-14

years

6 months C

School

1,173 1,070

103

excluded for

missing data

on parental

smoking

behavior

item

100% No attrition

analysis

reported

Imputation

using

expectation

maximization

algorithm

Structural

Equation

Modeling with

mean- and

variance- adjusted

chi-square

(WLSMV)

estimator

Henriksen

201055

U.S.

2003 to 2006

11-14

years

Sixth-

Eighth

grades

12 months

& 30

months

C

School

2,110 1,356 81% of

1,681

baseline

never

smokers

Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multi-level

modeling adjusted

for grade level,

sex, ethnicity,

race, & all other

predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Huver

200656

Netherlands

1998 to 2000

Seventh

grade

Mean

age=13.

2 years

2 years C/R

School

30 high

schools

from 5

regions

2,312 at time

1

2,421 at time

2

1,072

baseline

never

smokers

who

provided

data at both

times

Not

reported

No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Stepwise logistic

regression with

covariates entered

by backward

likelihood ratio,

adjusted for age

and sex, with all

predictors of

interest entered

simultaneously

Jackson

199857G

U.S.

1994 to 1996

Third

and Fifth

grades

2 years C

School

1,470 788

125 of 913

with

complete

data

excluded as

baseline

smokers

62% Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

Hierarchical

logistic regression

adjusted for sex,

grade, race, &

academic ability

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Jackson

200758

U.S.

2002 to

2004*

Seventh

and

Eighth

grades

2 years C for

baseline

Random

sample

from

baseline

cohort

for

follow-

up

School

1,074 who

completed

baseline

interview

735 baseline

never

smokers

95% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

stratified by

race/ethnicity,

adjusted for sex,

grade, friends’ &

household

smoking, & all

other predictors of

interest

Jackson,

Henriksen

199859G

U.S.

1994 to 1996

Fifth

grade

1, 2, and 3

years

C

School

633 401

12 students

excluded for

inconsistent

reporting of

smoking

behavior

95% at 1

year

81% at 2

years

65% at 3

years

Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Hierarchical

logistic regression

with simultaneous

entry of covariates

and stepwise

forward selection

of predictors,

adjusted for sex,

race, single-parent

status, best

friend’s & parents’

smoking

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Killen

199760

U.S.

Not reported

Ninth

grade

4 years C

School

1,901 985 baseline

never

smokers

(96% of

1026

available)

54% No attrition

analysis

reported

Complete

case analysis

Cox proportional

hazard analysis

adjusted for age

and alcohol use

King 200461

U.S.

1990-2004 to

1993-1996

for males

1993-1996 to

1996-1999

for females

10-12

years

3 years R

State-

wide

birth

records

1,402 1,364 Not

reported

No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Generalized

estimating

equations clustered

by twin pairs,

covariates not

reported

Lee 200262

U.S.

1999 to 2000

Fourth

to

Seventh

grades

8 months R

School

1,219 978 baseline

never

smokers

85% No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Crosstabs with

Relative Risk

estimates

calculated from 2

by 2 tables,

adjusted for grade,

sex, & ethnicity

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Mahabee-

Gittens

201363

U.S.

1999 to 2004

9-16

years

3 years R

National

house-

hold

5,705

baseline

never

smokers

4,875 at

year 1

4,372 at

year 2

3,829 at

year 3

67% Attrition

analysis

Jackknife

method and

sample

weights

assigned to

account for

attrition

Logistic regression

with cohort

sequential design,

adjusted for

race/ethnicity, sex,

parental education,

parental smoking

status, family

structure, & peer

smoking

McKelvey

201564

Jordan

2007 to 2010

Seventh

grade

13 years

3 years R

School

1,781 1,454

baseline

never

smokers

Not

reported

No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Mixed logistic

modeling stratified

by sex, accounting

for clustering by

school and for

repeated measures,

adjusted for school

type, parental

education, & all

other predictors of

interest that were

significantly

related to onset in

univariate analyses

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Milton

200465

England

1999 to 2001

9 years 2 years R

School

275 195 baseline

never

smokers

92%

Loss to

follow-up

due to

absence

from

school or

illness on

day of

survey

No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

with backward

removal, which

determined

covariates

Appendix



Wellman et al.


O’Loughlin

200966

Canada

1999 to 2005

12-13

years

Seventh

grade

5 years

Assessed

every 3

months

C

School

1,294 877 baseline

never

smokers

Not

reported

No attrition

analysis

reported

Missing data

imputed by

first

observation

carried

forward & last

observation

carried

backward

Pooled logistic

regression analysis

to mimic Cox

proportional

hazard models

Separate

multivariable

logistic regression

within a

generalized

estimating

equations

framework, with

an autoregressive

working

correlation

structure for the

residuals, to

correct for

individual-level

clustering due to

repeated

measurements on

the same

participant.

Separate analyses

for each predictor,

adjusted for

unique covariates

determined by

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

correlation with

predictor at r≥0.20

O’Loughlin

199867

Canada

1993 to 1995

9-12

years

Fourth

to Fifth

grades

1 year C

School

2,804 1,824 67% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, friends’,

siblings’ and

parents’ smoking,

& “junk food”

consumption

Pierce

200268D

U.S.

1996 to 1999

12-14

years

3 years R

State-

wide

house-

hold

2,518 1,641

baseline

never

smokers

68% No attrition

analysis

reported

Sample

weights

adjusted for

nonresponse,

loss to follow-

up and

population

totals

Jackknife

procedure to

produce

variance

estimates and

CIs

Logistic regression

stratified by

parenting style

(more vs. less

authoritative),

adjusted for age,

sex, race/ethnicity,

parental

educational level,

perceived school

performance, & all

other predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Pierce

200569D

U.S.

1996 to 1999

12-15

years

3 years R

State-

house-

hold

3,172 2,119

baseline

never

smokers

67% No attrition

analysis

reported

Sample

weights

adjusted for

nonresponse,

loss to follow-

up and

population

totals

Jackknife

procedure to

produce

variance

estimates and

CIs

Logistic

regression,

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity, &

all other predictors

of interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Rosendahl

200270E

Sweden

1997 to.1998

Fifth

grade

Mage =

11.6

years

1 year R

School

3,019 2,883 95.5% No attrition

analysis

reported

No

information

on missing

data

3-level

hierarchical

modeling (students

as level 1, class as

level 2, school as

level 3) with log

link and Poisson

distribution of

error, adjusted for

all predictors in

the model

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Sargent

200471B

U.S.

1999 to 2003

10-14 13 to 26

months

Average

period=17

months

R

School

3,450 2,596 71% Attrition

analysis

Simulation

analysis to

determine

potential

differences in

estimates if

(a) parental

movie

restriction had

no effect on

smoking onset

and (b) those

lost to follow-

up were

highly

susceptible to

smoking onset

based on other

variables

General linear

models with log

link and

adjustment for

clustering by

school

Model 1 adjusted

for age, sex,

parental education,

& school

Model 2 adjusted

for all predictors

of interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Sargent

200972F

Germany

2005 to 2006

10-15

years

1 year R

School

5,626 2,716

baseline

never

smokers

82% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multivariate

proportional odds

logistic model

adjusted for age,

sex, friends’,

siblings’ and

parents’ smoking,

school, SES, and

all other predictors

of interest

Spelman

200973H

U.S.

2005-2006 to

2008-2009

11-13

years

3 years R

City-

wide

house-

hold

1,329 964 86% of

1,199

baseline

never

smokers

retained

80.4% with

complete

data on

parental

education

Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

for major

predictor

No

information

about missing

data on other

variables

Logistic regression

stratified by

susceptibility to

smoking, adjusted

for age, sex,

household

smoking, and all

other predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Tanski

200974

U.S.

2003 to 2005

10-14

years

2 years R

National

house-

hold

6,522 4,574 70% No attrition

analysis

reported

Post-

stratification

weighting to

correct for

nonresponse

and coverage

shortfall

Discrete time

hazard regression

analysis and

multivariate linear

logistic hazard

modeling, adjusted

for age, sex,

race/ethnicity,

parental education,

parents’, friends’,

siblings’ smoking,

and all other

predictors of

interest

Thrasher

200975

Mexico

2006 to 2007

11-14

years

1 year R

School

2,093

baseline

never

smokers

1,741 83% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

adjusted for age;

sex; parental,

sibling and friend

smoking & all

other predictors of

interest

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Titus-

Ernstoff

200876

U.S.

2002-2003 to

2004-2005

Fourth-

Sixth

grades

2 years R

School

2,499

baseline

never

smokers

2,354 at

wave 2

2,255 at

wave 3

94.2% at

wave 2

90.2% at

wave 3

Attrition

analysis via

logistic

regression

No

information

on missing

data

Poisson regression

accounting for

clustering by

school

Model examining

main predictors

adjusted for age,

sex, race, school

performance, self-

esteem, self-

regulation,

rebelliousness,

sensation-seeking,

parent education,

parent smoking

status, maternal

monitoring,

maternal

responsiveness,

and friends’

smoking

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Unger

200477

U.S.

2001 to 2002

Sixth

grade

1 year R

School

3,114

2,619 with

complete

data

2,106

baseline

never

smokers

70% of

entire

sample

84% of

those with

complete

data

Attrition

analysis

Complete

case analysis

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity,

acculturation,

grades in school,

SES, and parents’

education

Urberg

199778

U.S.

Not reported

Sixth,

Eighth,

& Tenth

grades

8 months C

School

1,128 207 baseline

never

smokers

91.1% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Hierarchical

logistic regression

adjusted for

ethnicity, sex, &

grade

Van De Ven,

Engels,

Kerstjens

200779I

Netherlands

2003 to 2004

11-16

years

23 months R

School

10,087 4,762

baseline

never

smokers

73.6% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Multinomial

logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity,

educational level,

& parental

smoking

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Van De Ven,

Engels,

Otten 200780I

2003 to 2004

11-16

years

18 months R

School

9,642 4,332

baseline

never

smokers

with

complete

data

74.2% No attrition

analysis

reported

Imputation

with full

information

maximum

likelihood

approach with

expectation

maximization

algorithm

Structural equation

models with

weighted least

squares (WLSMV)

estimator

Van De Ven

200981I

Netherlands

2003 to 2004

11-16

years

23 months R

School

10,087 257

(included

only

adolescents

with asthma

who

completed

all 3 waves

and had not

smoked at

baseline

67.1% No attrition

analysis

reported

Complete

case analysis

Hierarchical

logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, ethnicity,

educational level,

& parental

smoking

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Wang, Ho,

Lam 201182J

China

2006 to 2008

Second-

Fourth

grades

2 years R

School

3,508 2,051

baseline

never

smokers

61.9% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, place of birth,

number of

bedrooms in the

home, clustering

effect of schools,

secondhand smoke

exposure outside

home, & smoking

status of other

family members

Wang, Ho,

Lo 201183J

China

2006 to 2008

Second-

Fourth

grades

2 years R

School

3,508 Not clear 61.9% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

adjusted for age,

sex, place of birth,

clustering effect of

schools, parental

smoking status, &

secondhand smoke

exposure at home

Wilkinson

200984H

U.S.

2001 to 2002

11-13

years

6 months

& 1 year

R

City-

wide

house-

hold

1,328 1,142

baseline

never

smokers

97% Attrition

analysis

No

information

on missing

data

Logistic regression

stratified by

subjective social

status, adjusted for

age

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Study,

location,

time frame a

Baseline

age

(years)

or

grade(s)

Follow-up

period

Sample

type &

sourceb

Baseline

sample size

Analytic

sample size

%

Retained

Assessment

for bias and

handling of

missing data

Analytic

technique

Woodruff

200385K

U.S.

Not reported

Seventh

&

Eighth

grades

12-15

years

1 year C

School

913 478 baseline

never

smokers

72% No attrition

analysis

reported

Complete

case analyis

Logistic regression

adjusted only for

predictors related

to ease of

obtaining

cigarettes and

offers of cigarettes

Woodruff

200486K

U.S.

Not reported

Not

reported

1 year C

School

Not reported 478 baseline

never

smokers

Not

reported

No attrition

analysis

reported

Complete

case analysis

Logistic

regression;

covariates not

reported

a Studies conducted in the same cohort share a capital letter superscript: A - Aloise-Young 199635, Aloise-Young 200536; B - Dalton

200341, Sargent 200471; C - Den Exter Blokland 200643, Den Exter Blokland 200744, Engels 200447, Harakeh 200454; D - Distefan

200445, Gilpin 200549, Pierce 200268, Pierce 200569 (NB: Sample in 49 included 39 participants more than in 45, 68 & 69); E - Galanti48,

Rosendahl 200270; F - Hanewinkel 200851, Hanewinkel 200852, Sargent 200972; G - Jackson 199857, Jackson 199859; H - Spelman

200973, Wilkinson 200984; I - Van De Ven 200779, Van De Ven 200780, Van De Ven 200981; J - Wang 201182, Wang 201183; K -

Woodruff 200385, Woodruff 2004865. b Sample type: C=convenience, R=representative (i.e., probability or constructed to maximize representativeness according to key

demographic characteristics). * Jackson 200758: Initial convenience sample (n=3,261) recruited in 2001 from 3 school districts.

Follow-up sample (1,200) recruited randomly from among the larger sample with complete data and followed from 2002 to 2004.

Appendix



Wellman et al.


Appendix 3. Detailed Summary of Results From 53 Longitudinal Studies of 98 Conceptually Distinct Potential Predictors of Smoking

Onset in Adolescents

Predictor Study Resultsa Sig.b Directionc

Sociodemographic factors

Age

Albers 200834

Ref: 12-14 years

Lived with smoker:

15-17 OR=0.93 (0.86, 1.02)

18-21 OR=0.98 (0.35, 2.71)

Lived with nonsmoker:

15-17 OR=2.20 (1.65, 2.93)

18-21 OR=1.22 (0.69, 2.17)

Y Positive

Dalton 200341B d

Ref: 10 to <12 years

12 to <13: RR=1.40 (0.98, 2.01)

13 to <15: RR=2.31 (1.67, 3.19)

Y Positive

Hanewinkel 201150

Ref: 10-11 years

12: RR=1.57 (1.05, 2.35)

13: RR=1.77 (1.17, 268)

14-17: RR=1.89 (1.18, 3.02)

Y Positive

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

Ref: 10-11 years

12: RR=1.11 (0.89, 1.39)

13: RR=1.09 (0.83, 1.43)

14-16: RR=0.88 (0.64, 1.20)

N

Harakeh 201253 (Continuous)

Smoking at time 2: OR=1.22 (0.99, 1.51)


N

Huver 200656 (Continuous) ORm=1.35 (p<0.001) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966 (Continuous) OR=0.67 (0.61, 0.73) Y Inverse

O’Loughlin 199867 (Continuous) OR=1.6 (1.3, 2.0) Y Positive

Pierce 200569D Ref: 12-13 years

14-15: OR=1.26 (0.89, 1.67) N

Sargent 200471B

Ref: 10-11 years

Model 1f:

12: RR=1.4 (0.98, 2.0)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



13-14: RR=1.4 (1.7, 3.3)

Model 2f:

12: RR=1.2 (0.86, 1.7)

13-14: RR=1.6 (1.1, 2.2)

Sargent 200972F Continuous variable

OR=0.93 (0.84, 1.03) N

Spelman 200973H

Ref: 11-12 years (vs. 13)

Without susceptibility in model:

OR=2.38 (1.68, 3.37)

With susceptibility in model:

OR=2.23 (1.56, 3.18)

Y Positive

Tanski 200974

Ref: age 10 years @ baseline

Age 14 years @ baseline: HR=1.89 (1.46,

2.45)

Y Positive

Thrasher 200975

Ref: 11 or 12

13: RR=1.29 (0.82, 2.01)

14: RR=1.20 (0.74, 1.95)

N

Titus-Ernstoff 200876

Ref: 9 years

10: RRg=1.59 (1.06, 2.41)

11: RRg=2.75 (1.67, 4.52)

12: RRg=4.99 (3.10, 8.04)

Y Positive

Unger 200477 Continuous variable OR=1.24 (0.92, 1.69) N

Grade

Aloise-Young 199635A % initiating: 5th-6th: 7%; 6th-7th: 15%; 7th-8th:

14%; 8th-9th: 17% Y Positive

Aloise-Young 200536A No difference in initiation by grade N

D’Amico 200642 Ref: Sixth grade OR=1.26 (NS) N

Henriksen 201055

Ref: Sixth grade

Initiation at 12 months

Seventh grade: OR=0.88 (0.58, 1.32)

Eighth grade: OR=1.44 (0.99, 2.10)


Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Seventh grade: OR=1.41 (1.19, 1.67)

Eighth grade: OR=1.26 (1.07, 1.49)

Jackson 199857G Ref: Third grade

Fifth grade: OR=2.04 (1.46, 2.86) Y Positive

Jackson 200758 Ref: Seventh grade (white adolescents)

Eighth grade: ORn=1.85 (1.03, 3.81) Y Positive

Woodruff 200486K (Ref: grade 7) Grade 8: OR=2.34 (1.31, 4.20) Y Positive

Sex

Albers 200834

Ref: Male

Lived with smoker: OR=0.90 (0.65, 1.26)

Lived with nonsmoker: OR=0.80 (0.63, 1.03)

N

Aloise-Young 200536A No difference in initiation by sex N

Bohnert 200939 Ref: Female OR=1.34 (0.93, 1.92) N

Chang 201140 % initiating:

Female=23.93, Male=39.87 p<0.001 Ye F<M

Dalton 200341B Ref: Male RR=1.09 (0.87, 1.38) N

D’Amico 200642 Ref: Male OR=0.76 (NS) N

Distefan 200445D Ref: Female OR=1.18 (0.90, 1.56) N

Hanewinkel 201150 Ref: Female RR=1.08 (0.92, 1.51)

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F Ref: Male RR=1.02 (0.86, 1.22) N

Harakeh 201253

Ref: Female



Y F>M

Henriksen 201055

Ref: Female

Initiation at 12 months: OR=0.94 (0.68, 1.30)

Initiation at 30 months: OR=0.86 (0.75, 0.99)

Y F>M

Huver 200656 Ref: Male ORm=0.64 (p<0.001) Y F<M

Jackson 199858G Ref: Female OR=1.32 (0.96, 1.83) N

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G Ref: Male OR=1.69 (NS) N

Milton 200465 Ref: Female OR=2.36 (1.04, 5.36) Y F<M

O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: Male OR=1.19 (0.96, 1.47) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



O’Loughlin 199867 Ref: Female OR=1.5 (1.1, 2.0) Y F<M

Pierce 200569D Ref: Female OR=1.04 (0.77, 1.40) N

Sargent 200471B

Ref: Female

Model 1f: RR=0.93 (0.73, 1.2)

Model 2f: RR=0.70 (0.54, 0.90)

Y F<M

Sargent 200972F Ref: Male OR=1.09 (0.88, 1.34) N

Spelman 200973H

Ref: Female


OR=1.79 (1.28, 2.51)


OR=1.74 (1.24, 2.46)

Y F<M

Tanski 200974 Ref: Male HR=1.08 (0.92, 1.26) N

Thrasher 200975 Ref: Female RR (bivariate)=1.19 (0.93, 1.52) N

Titus-Ernstoff 200876 Ref: Male RRg=1.41 (1.13, 1.77) Y F>M

Unger 200477 Ref: Male OR=0.72 (0.51, 1.00) N

Van De Ven, Engels,

Kerstjens 200779I Ref: Female OR=1.03 (0.90, 1.18) N

Van De Ven 200981I

Ref: Male

Adjusted Modeli: OR=1.22 (0.64, 2.34)

Complete Modeli: OR=0.68 (0.33, 1.42)

N

Wilkinson 200984H

Ref: Female [Stratified by subjective social

status (SSS)]

High SSS: OR=1.88 (0.94, 3.75)

Moderate/low SSS: OR=2.36 (1.32, 4.22)

Y F<M

Woodruff 200486K Ref: Unclear OR=1.02 (0.57, 1.82) N

Race/ethnicity

Albers 200834

Ref: non-Hispanic white


Lived with nonsmoker: OR=0.80 (0.47, 1.36)

N

Aloise-Young 199635A Hispanic 17%; non-Hispanic white: 11%; other

ethnicities combined: 12% Y H>other

Aloise-Young 200536A No difference in initiation by ethnicity N

Bohnert 200939 ßadj (black vs. white)= -4.49 (-8.02 to 0.95) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



D’Amico 200642

Ref: white

Latino OR=1.45 (NS) Other OR=2.17

(p<0.01)

Y other non-

H>W

Henriksen 201055

Ref: All others


Hispanic: OR=1.59 (1.15, 2.22)

Any minority: OR=1.01 (0.73, 1.40)


Hispanic: OR=1.43 (1.25, 1.65)

Any minority: OR=0.88 (0.77, 1.01)

Y H>W

Jackson 199857G Ref: white OR=1.83 (1.18, 2.85) Y NW>W

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G Ref: white OR=1.58 (NS) N

Pierce 200569D

Ref: non-Hispanic white

Hispanic: OR=0.75 (0.55, 1.03)

African-American: OR=0.38 (0.21, 0.69)

Asian/other: OR=0.66 (0.45, 0.96)

Y

W>A-A

W>Asian or

other

Tanski 200974

Ref: White

Black: HR=0.99 (0.78, 1.25);

Hispanic: HR=1.13 (0.91, 1.41);

Other nonwhite: HR=1.16 (0.88, 1.51)

N

Titus-Ernstoff 200876 Other (Ref: White), RRg=1.29 (0.98, 1.70) N

Unger 200477

Ref: White

Asian: OR=0.33 (0.16, 0.68)

Black: OR=0.54 (0.12, 2.50)

Hispanic: OR=1.24 (0.70, 2.21)

Other/multiethnic: OR=0.88 (0.43, 1.81)

Y W>Asian

Woodruff 200486K (Ref: Non-Latino) Latino: OR=1.35 (0.73,

2.51) N

Socioeconomic status (SES) Chang 201140 % initiating: Low=42.98, Medium=30.59,

High=22.93, p<0.001 Ne

Hanewinkel 201150 Ref: First quartile Y Inverse

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Second quartile: RR=0.79 (0.58, 1.09)

Third quartile: RR=0.64 (0.44, 0.95)

Fourth quartile: RR=0.43 (0.25, 0.74)

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

School SES (Ref: Middle to High)

Mixed: RR=1.04 (0.86, 1.25)

Mid: RR=1.41 (1.06, 1.89)

Low: RR=1.34 (1.05, 1.71)

Y Inverse

Harakeh 201253

Ref: Low

Smoking at time 2

Average: OR=0.73 (0.56, 0.94)

High: OR=0.46 (0.34, 0.62)

Smoking at time 3

Average: OR=0.76 (0.58, 1.00)

High: OR=0.62 (0.47, 0.82)

Y Inverse

Sargent 200972F

Ref: High

Mixed: OR=1.02 (0.69, 1.51)

Middle: OR=1.51 (1.17, 1.94)

Low: OR=1.49 (1.13-1.97)

Y Inverse

Unger 200477

Ratio of rooms in house to number of people

living in house (continuous)

OR=0.92 (0.59, 1.43)

N

Geographic location

Bohnert 200939 Ref: Suburban OR (urban)=1.17 (0.65, 2.10) N

Chang 201140 % initiating:

Urban=26.61, Rural=38.58, p < .001 Ne

Hanewinkel 201150

Ref: Schleswig-Holstein

Hamburg: RR=0.82 (0.52, 1.22)

Brandenburg: RR=1.21 (0.86, 1.69)

N

Language spoken at home O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: English

French: OR=0.69 (0.40, 1.20) N

Parent education Bohnert 200939 Mother’s education

Ref: College N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



<high school: OR=0.64 (0.32, 1.29)

High school: OR=1.18 (0.69, 2.03)

Some college: OR=1.07 (0.65, 1.75)

O’Loughlin 200966 Parents completed college (Ref: No)

OR=1.22 (0.94, 1.58) N

Sargent 200471B

Ref: Both completed high school

Neither/one completed high school:

Model 1f: RR=1.6 (1.2, 2.1)

Model 2f: RR=1.0 (0.77, 1.4)

N

Tanski 200974

Poor parent education (comparison of highest

and lowest levels of ordinal variable)

HR=1.09 (0.85, 1.40)

N


Ref: ≥Bachelor`s degree

Some college: RRg=2.31 (1.58, 3.37)

≤High school diploma: RRg=3.01 (2.02, 4.49)’

Y Inverse

Unger 200477

Mother’s education (Ref: not finished high

school vs. finished high school but not college

and college graduate) OR=0.99 (0.76, 1.30)

N

Father’s education (Ref: not finished high

school vs. finished high school but not college

and college graduate) OR=0.93 (0.71, 1.22)

N

Single-parent family

Bohnert 200939 Single mother (Ref: Married)

OR=2.15 (1.31, 3.53) Y Positive

Chang 201140 (% initiating)

No=28.97, Yes=46.51, p<0.001 Ye Positive

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G Ref: No OR=1.46 (NS) N

O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=1.48 (1.05, 2.09) Y Positive

Personal/Psychological Factors

Academic ability Jackson 199857G

Ref: High

Moderate: OR=1.08 (0.80, 2.36)

Low: OR=1.38 (0.75, 1.55)

N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Academic performance

Chang 201140 % initiating: Poor=32.79, Fair=35.10,

Good=25.29, p<0.05 Ne

Dalton 200341B

Ref: Excellent

Good: RR=2.29 (1.67, 3.13)

Average/Below average: RR=3.65 (2.62, 5.09)

Y Inverse

Hanewinkel 201150

Ref: Excellent

Good: RR=1.31 (0.81, 2.13)

Average/Poor: RR=1.83 (1.12, 2.97)

Y Inverse

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

Ref: Excellent

Good: RR=1.02 (0.80, 1.30)

Poor: RR=1.25 (0.92, 1.71)

N

Henriksen 201055

Ref: Mostly As and Bs


Mostly Bs and below: OR=1.51 (1.10, 2.09)


Mostly Bs and below: OR=1.61 (1.40, 1.86)

Y -

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G

[8-point scale from mostly As to mostly Ds or

lower] OR=1.26 (p<0.05) Y Positive

Sargent 200471B

Ref: Excellent

Model 1f:

Good: RR=2.2 (1.6, 3.1)

Average/below average: RR=3.5 (2.5, 4.9)

Model 2f:

Good: RR=1.8 (1.3, 2.4)

Average/below average: RR=2.1 (1.5, 3.1)

Y Inverse

Sargent 200972F

Ref: Excellent

Good: OR=1.03 (0.72, 1.47)

Average: OR=1.25 (0.87, 1.80)

Below average: OR=2.00 (1.09, 3.67)

Y Inverse

Tanski 200974

[Comparison of highest vs. lowest level of

ordinal variable]

HR=1.68 (1.27, 2.22)

Y Inverse

Appendix



Wellman et al.




Ref: Excellent

Good: RRg=1.72 (1.34, 2.21)

Average/below average: RRg=2.92 (2.24, 3.80)

Y Inverse

Unger 200477 5-point scale from 'mostly Fs' to 'mostly As'

(continuous) OR=0.81 (0.68, 0.97) Y Inverse

Woodruff 200486K

[7-point scale, higher scores mean greater

achievement - continuous variable]

OR=0.78 (0.62, 0.99)

Y Inverse

Acculturation Unger 200477 8-item scale (continuous) OR=0.97 (0.90,

1.04) N

Attachment to community or family

Chang 201140

Community attachment (% initiating):

Low=33.82, Medium=33.41, High=25.00,

p<0.001

Ye Inverse

Woodruff 200486K Importance of family (i.e., Familism) (Ref

lower familism) OR=1.76 (0.84-3.68) N

Attachment to school Chang 201140 Did not initiate: M=10.86, SD=1.43

Initiated: M=10.22, SD=1.54, p<0.001 Ye Inverse

Attitudes toward school Lee 200262 Dislikes school (Ref: No) RRo=2.31 (0.67,

7.91) N

Depression/depressive symptoms

Chang 201140 Did not initiate: M=11.06, SD=2.76

Initiated: M=11.57, SD=2.79, p<0.001 Ne

Gilpin 200549D Ref: No depressive symptoms

OR=1.41 (1.00, 1.98) Y Positive

Killen 199760

[20 item scale, higher scores mean greater

depression] (continuous) HR=1.03 (p<0.01)

NB: Among boys only

Y Positive

King 200461 Major depressive disorder (Ref: No)

OR=2.13 (1.22, 3.71) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966

[6 items, 4-point scale, higher scores mean

more depressive symptoms] (continuous)

OR=1.08 (0.89, 1.32)

N

Externalizing traits/disorders King 200461 Conduct disorder (Ref: No) Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



OR=1.54 (1.07, 2.22)

Oppositional-defiant disorder (Ref: No)

OR=1.78 (1.25, 2.54) Y Positive

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Ref:

No)

OR=1.87 (1.12, 3.10)

Y Positive

Internalizing disorders King 200461

Separation anxiety disorder (Ref: No)

OR=0.84 (0.56, 1.25) N

Overanxious disorder (Ref: No)

OR=1.09 (0.55, 2.16) N

Perceived academic performance

Lee 200262 Ref: Better/Much better than average

Average or below: RRo=3.41 (1.42, 8.21) Y Inverse

O’Loughlin 200966 Doing well at school (Ref: a bit/very true)

Not at all true: OR=1.51 (1.09, 2.08) Y Inverse

Pierce 200569D

Ref: Much better than average

Above average: OR=1.06 (0.81, 1.68)

Average or below: OR=1.51 (1.01, 2.25)

Y Inverse

Perceived parental control Den Exter Blokland

200744C

[8 items; 5-point scale]

Initiation @ time 2: OR=0.61 (0.41, 0.89)


Smoking parents - OR=0.37, p<0.01;

Non-smoking parents - OR=0.77, n.s.}

Y Inverse

Perceived parental support



Den Exter Blokland

200744C

[11 items; 5-point scale]



N

Personality

traits/Temperament

Impulsivity O’Loughlin 200966

[7 items, 5-point scale, higher scores mean

greater impulsivity] (continuous) OR=1.21

(1.02, 1.44)

Y Positive

Novelty-

seeking O’Loughlin 200966 Novelty-seeking [9 items, 5-point scale]

(continuous) OR=1.22 (0.99, 1.50) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Rebelliousness

Dalton 200341B

(Ref: First quartile)




Y Positive

Gilpin 200549D (Ref: Low)

Moderate or High: OR=1.35 (1.05, 1.74) Y Positive

Sargent 200471B

[7-item index, range 0-21] (continuous)

Model 1f: RR=1.2 (1.1, 1.2)

Model 2f: RR=1.0 (0.99, 1.1)

Y Positive

Tanski 200974 (Comparison of highest and lowest levels of

ordinal variable) HR=1.83 (1.40, 2.38) Y Positive



Second quartile: RRg=1.11 (0.76, 1.62)

Third quartile: RRg=1.77 (1.26, 2.47)

Fourth quartile: RRg=3.49 (2.60, 4.67)

Y Positive

Risk-taking

propensity Henriksen 201055

[4-point scale] (continuous)

Initiation @ 12 months: OR=1.51 (1.24, 1.81)


Y Positive

Sensation-

seeking

Dalton 200341B





Y Positive

Hanewinkel 201150 (Ref: Below median)

Above median: RR=1.66 (1.29, 2.15) Y Positive

Jackson 200758

White adolescents (Ref: Low)

Moderate: ORn=2.47 (1.16, 5.28)

High: ORn=4.65 (2.19, 9.88)

Y Positive

Sargent 200471B


Model 1f: RR=1.2 (1.1, 1.2)

Model 2f: RR=1.0 (1.0, 1.1)

Y Positive

Tanski 200974 (Comparison of highest and lowest levels of

ordinal variable) Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



HR=2.77 (2.08, 3.70)

Thrasher 200975

(Ref: Low)

Mid: RR=0.99 (0.76, 1.29)

High: RR=1.50 (1.10, 2.04)

Y Positive





Fourth quartile: RRg=5.04 (3.34, 7.61)

Y Positive

Sensation-

seeking-

rebelliousness

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852J

[3-point scale, higher numbers mean greater

SS/R] (continuous) RR=1.53 (1.20, 1.96) Y Positive

Sargent 200972F

[12-item index, range 0-3, rescaled so 5th

percentile = 0 & 95th percentile = 1]

(continuous) OR=2.53 (1.61, 3.98)

Y Positive

Problematic interpersonal relations

in class Rosendahl 200270E Ref: Positive relations RR=1.42 (1.05, 1.93) Y Positive

Self-competence Chang 201140 Did not initiate: M=21.15, SD=4.01


Self-esteem

Dalton 200341B

Ref: First quartile




Y Inverse

O’Loughlin 200966 [9 items, 3-point scale] continuous

OR=0.61 (0.46, 0.81) Y Inverse

Sargent 200471B


Model 1f:=0.94 (0.91, 0.97)

Model 2f: RR=0.99 (0.97, 1.0)

Y Inverse

Thrasher 200975

Ref: High

Mid: RR=1.13 (0.93, 1.38)

High: RR=1.34 (1.00, 1.79)

Y Inverse


Ref: Fourth quartile

Third quartile: RRg=1.41 (0.85–2.33)


Y Inverse

Appendix



Wellman et al.



First quartile: RRg=3.26 (1.95, 5.45)

Self-regulation Titus-Ernstoff 200876

Ref: Fourth quartile




Y Inverse

Sociability Killen 199760

[?-item scale, higher numbers indicate greater

sociability] (continuous] HR=1.55 (p<0.05)

{NB: Among girls only}

Y Positive

Stress symptoms O’Loughlin 200966

[Average of 13 items on 4-point scale, higher

numbers mean more stress]

OR=1.53 (1.04, 2.23)

Y Positive

Subjective social status in school Spelman 200973H

Ref: High (vs. Low)


OR=1.45 (1.02, 2.04)


OR=1.32 (0.93, 1.88)

Y Inverse

Trouble in school

Lee 200262 Ref: never, hardly ever, <1/month

≥1/week: RRo=2.45 (0.98, 6.10) N

Spelman 200973H

Detentions in school (Ref: None [vs. ≥1])


OR=1.98 (1.39, 2.82)


OR=1.88 (1.32, 2.70)

Y Positive

Smoking-Related Cognitions

Attitude toward smoking

Van De Ven, Engels,

Otten 200779I

Pro-smoking attitude [Average over 7 items in

7-point scale] (continuous)

Non-asthmatic: PMSCh (direct)=0.07, p<0.01

PMSCh (indirect)=0.16, p<0.001

Asthmatic: PMSCh (indirect)=0.24, p<0.001

Y Positive

Huver 200656

Pros of smoking [7-point scale, higher scores

mean more pros] (continuous):

ORm=1.05 (p=0.003)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Cons of smoking [7-point scale, higher scores

mean more cons] (continuous):

ORm=0.99 (p=0.562)

N

Curiosity about smoking Pierce 200569D

Ref: Definitely not

Probably not: OR=1.36 (1.03, 1.81)

Probably/definitely yes: OR=2.12 (1.53, 2.93)

Y Positive

Feeling like one really needs a

cigarette O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: Never

Rarely/sometimes/often: OR=6.04 (4.28, 8.52) Y Positive

Intention to smoke

Harakeh 200454C

[5 items, 5-point scale - higher scores mean

greater intention to smoke]

PMSCh=0.21, p<0.05

Y Positive

Huver 200656 [-3 to +3, higher scores mean greater intention]

(continuous) OR=1.92 (p<0.001) Y Positive

McKelvey 201564

Ref: No

Among boys: OR=3.07 (1.77, 5.32)

Among girls: OR=2.07 (1.09, 3.94)

Y Positive

Van De Ven, Engels,

Otten 200780I

Ordinal variable with 3 categories -- higher

value means greater intention to smoke

(continuous)

Non-asthmatic: PMSCh=0.20, p<0.001

Asthmatic: PMSCh=0.40, p<0.001

Y Positive

Perceived accessibility of cigarettes

Doubeni 200846

Ref: Strongly disagree with “It would be easy

for me to get cigarettes.”

Disagree a little: HR=1.52 (0.99, 2.34)

Neither agree nor disagree: HR=1.65 (0.93,

2.95)

Agree a little: HR=1.86 (1.20, 2.87)

Strongly agree: HR=3.28 (2.16, 4.97)

Y Positive

Woodruff 200385K k

Ease of buying from stores: OR=1.07 (0.66,

1.74) N

Ease of obtaining from friends:

OR=1.14 (0.75, 1.73) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Ease of obtaining from parents:

OR=1.62 (1.03, 2.51) Y Positive

Ease of obtaining from an adult not a parent:

OR= OR=1.04 (0.65, 1.68) N

Ease of obtaining from a sibling:

OR=1.14 (0.73, 1.77) N

Ease of obtaining cigarettes around the house:

OR=1.08 (0.76, 1.52) N

Ease of stealing: OR=0.96 (0.61, 1.53) N

Perceived prevalence of peer

smoking Wang, Ho, Lo 201183J

Estimate of prevalence (Ref: Correct)

Incorrect: OR=1.79 (1.03, 3.13)

Overestimate: OR=2.15 (1.31, 3.54)

Gross overestimate: OR=1.30 (0.56, 3.02)

Y Positive

Change in perceived prevalence

(Ref: persistently correct)

Becoming incorrect OR=3.46 (2.15, 5.56)

(Ref: persistently incorrect)

Becoming correct: OR=0.30 (0.17, 0.53)

Y

Positive

Inverse

Perceived smoking norm Van De Ven, Engels,

Otten 200780I

Friends’ norm [Average of 2 items, 4-point

scale -- higher values mean greater approval]

(continuous)

Non-asthmatic:


Asthmatic: no effect

Yi Positive

Parents’ norm [1 item, 4-point scale -- higher

values mean greater approval] (continuous)

Non-asthmatic: PMSCh (direct)=0.07, p<0.01


Asthmatic: PMSCh (indirect)=0.14, p<0.01

Y Positive

Perceived similarity between self

and smokers Aloise-Young 199635A

% initiated as a function of number of traits on

which self and smoker perceived as similar:

0: 10.96%; 1: 11.56%; 2: 21.83%; 3: 20.00%

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



“Cool” image < median: 11.97%; > median:

17.67% -- OR=1.58, p<0.05

“Smart” image < median: 11.74%; > median:

24.78% -- OR=2.48, p<0.05

“Sociable” image < median: 11.90%; >

median: 15.16% -- OR=1.33, p<0.10

Positive outcome expectations about

smoking

Spelman 200973H

Ref: None (vs. Some)


OR=2.02 (1.45, 2.82)


OR=1.58 (1.11-2.25)

Y Positive

Wilkinson 200984H

[Average of 7 items -- higher scores mean

more positive outcome expectancies]

(continuous)

{Stratified by subjective social status (SSS)}

High SSS: OR=1.79 (0.73, 4.36)

Low/moderate SSS: OR=1.92 (1.02, 3.58)

Y Positive

Receptivity to tobacco advertising,

marketing or promotion, or to

warnings about smoking

Dalton 200341B Ref: No RR=2.09 (1.62, 2.71) Y Positive

Destefan 200445D

Ref: Minimal

Low: OR=1.17 (0.69, 2.00)

Moderate: OR=1.34 (0.76, 2.35)

High: OR=1.99 (1.07, 3.72)

Y Positive

Gilpin 200549D

Has favorite cigarette ad (Ref: No)

OR=1.27 (1.05, 1.53) Y Positive

Has/would use tobacco promotional item

(Ref: No) OR=1.38 (1.01, 1.89) Y Positive

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

Has favorite cigarette ad (Ref: No)

RR=1.38 (1.15, 1.65) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966

Ads make one want to smoke (Ref: Not at all)

A bit/very true: OR=3.80 (2.32, 6.81) Y Positive

Warnings make one afraid to smoke

(Ref: A bit/very true) Y Inverse

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Not at all true: OR=1.47 (1.18, 1.83)

Pierce 200268D

Ref: Minimal

Among adolescents with more authoritative

parents:

Low: OR=1.76 (0.65, 4.80)

Moderate: OR=2.32 (0.90, 5.98)

High: OR=3.52 (1.10, 11.23)

Among adolescents with less authoritative

parents:

Low: OR=1.15 (0.38, 3.46)

Moderate: OR=1.16 (0.40, 3.39)

High: OR=1.38 (0.43, 4.46)

Y Positive

Pierce 200569D

Ref: Minimal

Low: OR=1.23 (0.75, 2.04)

Moderate: OR=1.40 (0.82, 2.42)

High: OR=1.88 (0.99, 3.56)

N

Sargent 200471B

Ref: No

Model 1f: RR=2.0 (1.5, 2.6)

Model 2f: RR=1.2 (0.94, 1.6)

Y Positive

Sargent 200972F Ref: No OR=1.53 (1.07, 2.20) Y Positive

Thrasher 200975 Has/would use tobacco promotional item

Ref: No RR=1.56 (0.90, 2.76) N

Self-efficacy in resisting smoking

Huver 200656 [-3 to +3, higher scores mean greater self-

efficacy] (continuous) ORm=0.98 (p=0.001) Y Inverse

Van De Ven, Engels,

Otten 200780I

[Average of 6 items on 5-point scale -- higher

scores mean greater resistance] (continuous)

Non-asthmatic:

PMSCh indirect= -0.36, p<0.001

Asthmatic: PMSCh (indirect)= -0.42 p<0.001

Y

Inverse

(to intention to

smoke)

Susceptibility to smoking Destefan 200445D Ref: Committed never smoker

OR=1.88 (1.45, 2.43) Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Galanti 200148E

Ref: Not susceptible OR=3.60 (2.7, 4.8)

Boys: OR=6.2 (4.0, 9.5) Girls: OR=2.4 (1.6,

3.6)

Note: ORs are from univariate analysis

Y Positive

Jackson 199857

[5-point scale] Ref: 0

1: OR=1.83 (1.76, 1.89)

≥2: OR=3.74 (2.36, 5.93)

Y Positive

McKelvey 201564

Accept cigarettes from friend (Ref: No)

Among boys: OR=10.67 (6.14, 18.56)

Among girls: OR=4.95 (2.70, 9.08)

Y Positive

Pierce 200268D

Ref: No


parents: OR=1.91 (1.17, 3.12)


parents: OR=1.74 (1.12, 2.70)

Y Positive

Pierce 200569D

Ref: Committed never smoker

Susceptible: OR=1.36 (1.04, 1.79)

Highly susceptible: OR=2.82 (1.95, 4.10)

Y Positive

Spelman 200973H Ref: No OR=2.61 (1.79, 3.80) Y Positive

Social factors

Access to cigarettes

Den Exter Blokland

200643C

[3 items; 4-point scale] OR=1.31 (0.79, 2.17) N

Woodruff 200385K k

Cigarette offers from adults other than parent

OR=2.78 (1.30, 5.97) Y Positive

Cigarette offers from friends/classmates

OR=1.28 (0.59, 2.76) N

Cigarette offers from cousin

OR=0.97 (0.23, 4.09) N

Community tolerance of smoking O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: Low/moderate

High: OR=0.98 (0.78, 1.25) N

Familial smoking Bauman 200137 Ref: Parents don’t smoke (stratified by age)

≤13: RR=1.32 (0.84, 1.81) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



14: RR=1.41 (0.81, 2.00)

15: RR=1.00 (0.58, 1.42)

16: RR=1.04 (0.55, 1.54)

≥17: RR=1.19 (0.80, 1.58)

Bidstrup 200938

Mother smokes (ref = No)

6-month follow-up: OR=1.4 (0.9, 2.3)

1-year follow-up: OR=1.5 (0.9, 2.5)

Father smokes (ref=No)

6-month follow-up:

“don’t know” - OR=18.1 (3.8, 85.3)

“yes” - OR=2.7 (1.7, 4.3)

1-year follow-up:

“don’t know” - OR=2.0 (0.3, 15.8)

“yes” - OR=1.6 (0.9, 2.7)

Y Positive

Chang 201140

% initiating: Neither parent smokes=21.95,

One parent smokes=35.57, Both parents

smoke=50.75, p<0.001

Ye Positive

Dalton 200341B

Ref: No

Any parent smokes: RR=2.25 (1.77, 2.86)

Any sibling smokes: RR=1.91 (1.42, 2.59)

Y Positive

Den Exter Blokland

200643C

Ref: Nonsmoking parents

One or both smokes: OR=0.85 (0.40, 1.82) N

Engels 200447C

Ref: No parents smoke

Initiation between time 1 & time 2

One parent smokes: OR=1.71 (1.05, 2.79)

Both parents smoke: OR=2.03 (1.11, 3.71)


One parent smokes: OR=1.76 (1.12, 2.76)

Both parents smoke: OR=1.86 (1.02, 3.37)

Y Positive

Gilpin 200549D Ref: No smokers in family OR=1.28 (1.04,

1.56) Y Positive

Hanewinkel 201150 Ref: No parent smokes RR=1.13 (0.87, 1.36) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

Ref: No parent smokes RR=1.07 (0.89, 1.27) N

Ref: No sibling smokes RR=1.57 (1.29, 1.92) Y Positive

Harakeh 200454C Ref: Neither parent smokes

≥1 parent smokes: PMSC=0.41, p<0.05 Y Positive

Henriksen 201055

Ref: No household smokers

Initiation @ 12 months

At least 1 smoker: OR=1.54 (1.12, 2.12)


At least 1 smoker: OR=1.25 (1.09, 1.44)

Y Positive

Huver 200656 Ref: Parents do not smoke

Either parent smokes: ORm=1.26 (p<0.001) Y Positive

Jackson 199857G

Ref: No household smokers

1 smoker: OR=2.18 (1.48, 3.21)

≥2 smokers: OR=2.34 (1.53, 3.59)

Y Positive

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G Ref: No parent smokes OR=1.74 (p<0.05) Y Positive

McKelvey 201364

Ref: No parent smokes

Among boys: OR=1.15 (0.71, 1.85

Among girls: OR=1.90 (1.20, 3.00)

Y Positive

Ref: No sibling smokes

Among boys: OR=0.91 (0.53, 1.55)

Among girls: OR=1.75 (1.11, 2.75)

Y Positive

Milton 200465

Father smoking (Ref: never smoked)

Current smoker: OR=5.27 (2.18, 12.74)

Ex-smoker: OR=2.81 (0.90, 8.81)

Y Positive

Brothers’ smoking (Ref: None)

OR=5.32 (1.36, 21.18) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966

Parents’ smoking (Ref: No)

OR=1.49 (1.18, 1.87) Y Positive

Siblings’ smoking (Ref: No)

OR=1.91 (1.45, 2.51) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 199867 Ref: No parent smokes OR=2.2 (1.6, 3.0) Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Ref: No sibling smoke OR=1.9 (1.2, 3.1)

Pierce 200268D

Ref: No familial smoking


parents: OR=1.07 (0.67, 1.69)


parents: OR=1.44 (0.89, 2.34)

N

Pierce 200569D Ref: No exposure OR=1.20 (0.93, 1.54) N

Sargent 200972F

Parental smoking (Ref: neither parent smokes)

OR=1.00 (0.81, 1.23) N

Sibling smoking (Ref: No sibling smokes)

OR=1.88 (1.44, 2.47) Y Positive

Spelman 200973H

Ref: No individual in household smokes


OR=1.98 (1.44, 2.81)


OR=1.93 (1.37, 2.71)

Y Positive

Tanski 200974

Parental smoking (Ref: No parent smokes)

HR=1.53 (1.30, 1.80) Y Positive

Sibling smoking (Ref: No sibling smokes)

HR=1.60 (1.33, 1.94) Y Positive

Thrasher75 Ref: No parent smokes RR=1.52 (1.18, 1.95)

Ref: No sibling smokes RR=1.49 (1.14, 1.95) Y Positive

Titus-Ernstoff 200876 Ref: No parent smokes RRg=2.60 (2.03, 3.33) Y Positive

Unger 200477 Ref: no parent smokes OR=1.22 (0.95, 1.57) N

Van De Ven, Engels,

Kerstjens 200779I

Father smokes (Ref: No): OR=1.15 (0.98-

1.35) N

Mother smokes (Ref: No): OR=1.33 (1.12-

1.57) Y Positive

Wang, Ho, Lam 201182J

Either parent smokes (Ref: No)

Model 1j

Paternal only: OR=1.68 (1.12, 2.53)

Both: OR=1.08 (0.41, 2.83)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Any: OR=1.53 (1.04, 2.24)

Model 2j

Paternal only: OR=1.38 (0.95, 1.98)

Both: OR=0.95 (0.38, 2.43)

Any: OR=1.25 (0.89, 1.77)

Woodruff 200486K Ref: Unclear OR=0.91 (0.49, 1.67) N

Friend(s) smoking

Albers 200834

Ref: No friends smoke


Lived with nonsmokers: OR=2.26 (1.64, 3.12)

Y Positive

Bauman 200137

Ref = No friends smoke (stratified by age)

≤13: RR=2.49 (1.57, 3.51)

14: RR=1.35 (0.88, 1.32)

15: RR=1.72 (1.35, 2.38)

16: RR=1.41 (0.81, 2.01)

≥17: RR=2.20 (1.48, 2.92)

Y Positive

Bidstrup 200938

Best friend smokes (ref=No)

6-month follow-up:

“don’t know” - OR=0.1 (0.0, 0.5)

“yes” - OR=13.2 (6.0, 28.8)

1-year follow-up:

“don’t know” - OR=0.3 (0.1, 1.7)

“yes” - OR=0.7 (0.2, 2.8)

Y Positive

Bohnert 200939 Ref: No friends smoke OR=1.75 (1.14, 2.69) Y Positive

Dalton 200341B Ref: No friends smoke RR=1.87 (1.46, 2.41) Y Positive

Engels 200447C

Ref: Best friend does not smoke


OR=1.50 (0.90, 2.49)


OR=1.73 (1.12, 2.67)

Y Positive

Gilpin 200549D Ref: No friends smoke OR=1.41 (1.14, 1.75) Y Positive

Hanewinkel 201150 Ref: No friends smoke RR=2.24 (1.29, 2.96) Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F Ref: No friends smoke RR=1.57 (1.34, 1.83) Y Positive

Henriksen 201055



At least 1 friend smokes: OR=1.67 (1.06, 2.64)


At least 1 friend smokes: OR=1.91 (1.56, 2.36)

Y Positive

Jackson 199857G Ref: No friends smoke

≥1 friend(s) smoke: OR=1.28 (0.78, 1.98) N

Jackson 200758


White adolescents

≥1 friend(s) smoke: ORn=4.15 (2.18, 7.92)

Black adolescents

≥1 friend(s) smoke: ORn=4.15 (2.33, 7.39)

Y Positive

Jackson, Henriksen

199859G Ref: No friends smoke OR=1.16 (NS) N

Killen 199760

[Number of friends] (continuous)

Among girls: HR=1.85 (p<0.001)

Among boys: HR=1.28 (p<0.05)

Y Positive

Mahabee-Gittens 201363

Ref: No time with smoking friends

Any time spent with smoking friends:

Initiation by age 11: OR=2.02 (0.92, 3.12)







Y Positive

McKelvey 201564


Among boys: OR=2.34 (1.40, 3.91)

Among girls: OR=2.00 (1.22, 3.28)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Milton 200465

Best friend’s smoking (Ref: No)

Yes: OR=5.36 (1.04, 27.66)

Don’t know: OR=2.86 (1.05, 7.83)

Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: None

A few or more: OR=3.29 (2.62, 4.13) Y Positive

O’Loughlin 199867 Ref: None/don't know OR=2.3 (1.7, 3.3) Y Positive

Pierce 200268D

Ref: No peer smoking


parents: OR=1.65 (1.07, 2.65)


parents: OR=1.60 (1.04, 2.67)

Y Positive

Pierce 200569D Ref: No exposure to best friend smokers

OR=1.70 (1.30, 2.15) Y Positive

Rosendahl 200270E

Prevalence of ever smoking in fifth grade (Ref:

0-17%)

School-Level: 18-56: RR=1.13 (0.88, 1.45)

Class Level: 17-71: RR=1.34 (1.05, 1.70)

Y Positive

Sargent 200471B

Ref: No

Model 1f: RR=1.8 (1.4, 2.4)

Model 2f: RR=1.2 (0.91, 1.5)

Y Positive

Sargent 200972F

[4-point scale: none, some, most, all] Ref:

None

OR=1.99 (1.59, 2.48);

Y Positive

Tanski 200974 Ref: No HR=2.39 (2.02, 2.84) Y Positive

Thrasher 200975 Ref: Best friend does not smoke

RR=1.95 (1.28, 2.98) Y Positive

Titus-Ernstoff 200876 Ref: No friends smoke RRg=4.02 (2.97, 5.43) Y Positive

Urberg 199778

Ref: No

Close friend smokes: Beta=0.73, p=0.001

Friendship group smokes: Beta=0.31, p=0.67

Y Positive

Friends/family smoke Destefan 200445D Ref: No friends/family smoke Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Family smoke/Not friends: OR=1.34 (0.93,

1.97)

Friends smoke/Not family: OR=1.99 (1.50,

2.64)

Friends & family smoke: OR=2.25 (1.54, 3.28)

House rules on smoking Den Exter Blokland

200643C [6 items; 5-point scale] OR=1.10 (0.84, 1.45) N

Household smoking ban Albers 200834

Ref: No ban


Lived with nonsmokers: OR=1.89 (1.30, 2.74)

Y Positive

Maternal control Sargent 200471B

[4-item index; range 0-12]

Model 1e: RR=0.97 (0.92, 1.0)

Model 2e: RR=1.0 (0.99, 1.1)

N

Maternal demandingness Dalton 200341B





N

Maternal responsiveness

Dalton 200341B





Y Inverse


Ref: Third & Fourt quartiles

Second quartile: RRg=1.19 (0.81–1.76)

First quartile: RRg=1.69 (1.30–2.19)

Y Inverse

Maternal support Sargent 200471B

[4-item index, range 0-12]

Model 1f: RR=0.92 (0.88, 0.97)

Model 2f: RR=1.0 (0.95, 1.0)

N

Mother’s smoking history Bohnert 200939

Ref: Never smoked

Smoked during pregnancy:

OR=1.54 (0.99, 2.38)

Smoked, but not during pregnancy:

OR=1.61 (0.89, 2.90)

N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Parental authority Thrasher 200975 Ref: Legitimate

Authority illegitimate: RR=1.11 (0.92, 1.35) N

Parental communication about

smoking

Den Exter Blokland


Huver 200656

Discussed smoking in general [5-point scale:

never-often] ORm=1.20 (p<0.001) Y Positive

Discussed health risks of inhaling smoke [5-

point scale: never-often] ORm=0.64 (p=0.002) Y Inverse

Discussed being allowed to smoke [5-point

scale: never-often] ORm=1.39 (p=0.004) Y Positive

Discussed price of cigarettes [5-point scale:

never-often] ORm=1.33 (p=0.047) Y Positive

Discussed smoking is addictive [5-point scale:

never-often] ORm=0.88 (p=0.273) N

Parental confidence in affecting

child’s smoking behavior

Den Exter Blokland


Parental knowledge of child’s and

friends’ smoking

Den Exter Blokland

200643C [7 items; 5-point scale] OR=0.58 (0.36, 0.92) Y Inverse

Parental engagement or

connectedness

Jackson 200758

Ref: High

White adolescents

Moderate: ORn=1.85 (0.98, 3.51)

Low: ORn=2.81 (1.19, 6.64)

Black adolescents

Moderate: ORn=1.06 (0.58, 1.94)

Low: ORn=2.52 (1.19, 5.33)

Y Inverse


[Scale, higher scores mean greater

connectedness] (continuous)





Y Inverse

Appendix



Wellman et al.






Parental monitoring/supervision (of

child)

Bohnert 200939 Whites: OR=0.89 (0.83, 0.96)

Blacks: OR=0.98 (0.93, 1.04) Y Inverse




[Scale, higher scores mean more monitoring]

(continuous)


Initiation by age 12: OR=0. 89 (0.86, 1.10)





Initiation by age 17: OR=0.98 (0.69 1.27)

Y Inverse


Maternal monitoring Ref: Fourth quartile

Third quartile: RRg=1.39 (0.92–2.08)



Y Inverse

Unger 200477

[5-item scale, higher scores mean more

monitoring] (continuous) OR=0.70 (0.50,

0.97)

Y Inverse

Parental psychological control of

child

Den Exter Blokland


Parental smoking norm

Dalton 200341B Ref: Both parents disapprove

0/1 parent disapproves: RR=1.53 (1.16, 2.01) Y Inverse

Den Exter Blokland

200643C

Approval [2 items; 5-point scale]

OR=0.98 (0.62, 1.55) N

Destefan 200445D Ref: Parents disapprove

OR=0.99 (0.68, 1.44) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Huver 200656 [-3 to +3: higher scores mean greater approval]

ORm=1.05 (p=0.119) N

Sargent 200471B

Ref: Both parents disapprove of smoking

Neither or mixed disapproval:

Model 1f: RR=1.5 (1.1, 1.9)

Model 2f: RR=1.1 (0.81, 1.4)

Y Inverse

Woodruff 200486K

(Ref: Never) Child asked to clean ashtrays

OR=1.47 (0.75, 2.89) N

(Ref: Never) Child asked to bring cigarettes to

parent OR=1.53 (0.82, 2.89) N

(Ref: Never) Child asked by parent to accept

tobacco industry promotional gear as a gift

OR=0.81 (0.81, 3.56)

N

(Ref: Never) Child asked by parent to buy

cigarettes OR=2.82 (0.74, 10.78) N

(Ref: Never) Child asked by parent to light

cigarette OR=2.32 (0.74, 7.28) N

Parental warnings about smoking Den Exter Blokland


Parenting style

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

[3-point scale, higher numbers mean better

parenting] RR=0.98 (0.80, 1.20) N

Tanski 200974

[Highest vs. lowest level of ordinal variable;

higher levels mean poorer parenting]

HR=1.77 (1.33, 2.35)

Y Positive

Peer antismoking norms Gilpin 200549D Ref: Norms present OR=1.31 (1.05, 1.62) Y Inverse

Peer use of tobacco or other

substances

Bohnert 200939 Friend drank (Ref: No) OR=1.25 (0.75, 2.09) N

Chang 201140 % initiated: No peers smoke=9.89, Few peers

smoke=28.40, Over half of peers smoke=64.86 Ye Positive

D’Amico 200642 Peers smoked (Ref: No) OR=1.25 (NS) N

Perceived parental pressure not to

smoke Huver 200656 [5-point scale: never to very often]

ORm=1.05 (p=0.519) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Perceived parental reactions to

child’s smoking

Den Exter Blokland

200643C

Anger & punishment [6 items; 5-point scale]:

OR=0.70 (0.46, 1.07)

Laissez-faire [4 items, 5-point scale]:

OR=1.12 (0.73, 1.73)

Disappointment [4 items, 5-point scale]:

OR=0.80 (0.45, 1.41)

N

Huver 200656

Reward [5-point scale, higher scores mean

greater likelihood] (contiuous) ORm=1.02

(p=0.006)

Y Positive


Punishment [Scale, higher scores mean more

perceived punishment] (continuous)






Y Inverse

Perceived peer smoking D’Amico 200642 Ref: No OR=1.23 (NS) N

Perceived peer use of other

substances D’Amico 200642

Ref: No

Alcohol: OR=1.37 (NS)

Marijuana: OR=0.69 (NS)

N

Quality of parent-child

communication Unger 200477

[4-item scale, higher scores mean greater

communication] (continuous) OR=0.71 (0.56,

0.89)

Y Inverse

School factors related to smoking

(in-class) Rosendahl 200270E

Anti-tobacco curricula in class during the

previous year

Ref: <1 hour

1-2 hours: RR=0.72 (0.54, 0.97)

>2 hours: RR=1.16 (0.85, 1.59)

Y Inverse

Prevalence of ever-smoking by fifth grade

class members

Ref: ≤16% 17-71%: RR=1.34 (1.05, 1.70)

Y Positive

Student smoking discussed with parents N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Ref: No RR=1.04 (0.74, 1.48)

School factors related to smoking

(school-wide)

O’Loughlin 200966

School tolerance of smoking

(Ref: Low/moderate) High: OR=1.79 (1.09,

2.95)

Y Positive

Teachers/school staff smoke

Ref: Not at all true

A bit/very true: OR=1.64 (1.26, 2.14)

Y Positive

Rosendahl 200270E

Dedicated anti-tobacco activities (e.g., school

campaigns)

Ref: No RR=0.90 (0.70, 1.15)

N

Formal anti-tobacco curricula in school

Ref: No RR=0.86 (0.66, 1.11) N

Local antismoking policy formally adopted in

school

Ref: No RR=1.06 (0.80, 1.41)

N

Parents contacted in case of students smoking

in the school area

Ref: No RR=0.99 (0.57, 1.73)

N

Prevalence of smoking in fifth grade (school-

wide)

Ref: ≤17%

18-56%: RR=1.13 {0.88, 1.45)

N

School mandated warning in case of students

smoking in the school area

Ref: No RR=0.91 (0.71, 1.16)

N

School nurse contacted in case of students

smoking in the school area

Ref: No RR=0.93 (0.73, 1.19)

N

Smoking cessation for school personnel

Ref: No RR=1.11 (0.86, 1.44) N

Smoking cessation for students (in school)

Ref: No RR=1.10 (0.81, 1.50) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Smoking room for personnel

Ref: No RR=0.87 (0.67, 1.14) N

School factors unrelated to smoking

(in-class)

Rosendahl 200270E

Interpersonal relations in class

Ref: Positive

Problematic: RR=1.42 (1.05, 1.93)

Y Positive

Major changes in class composition since

previous year

Ref: No RR=0.87 (0.52, 1.43)

N

Number of students in the class

Ref: 5-19

20-24: RR=0.84 (0.55, 1.29)

25-29: RR=0.80 (0.52, 1.23)

30-84: RR=0.64 (0.40, 1.04)

N

Other health education in class

Ref: No RR=1.05 (0.78, 1.41) N

School factors unrelated to smoking

(school-wide) Rosendahl 200270E

Additional special disciplines in school

Ref: No RR=0.99 (0.77, 1.27) N

Numbers of teachers in school

Ref: 6-23

25-48: RR=1.05 (0.77, 1.43)

50-100: RR=1.19 (0.85, 1.66)

N

School includes grades 7 through 9

Ref: No RR=1.02 (0.78, 1.32) N

Second hand smoke exposure at

home Wang, Ho, Lam 201182J

Ref: None

Model 1j

1-3 days/week: OR=1.85 (0.77, 4.41)

4-7 days/week: OR=2.89 (1.34, 6.21)

Any: OR=2.35 (1.40, 3.94), p for trend=0.001

Per day increase: OR=1.19 (1.06, 1.33)

Model 2j

1-3 days/week: OR=1.64 (0.72, 3.75)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



4-7 days/week: OR=2.54 (1.15, 5.57)

Any: OR=2.07 (1.25, 3.43), p for trend=0.01

Per day increase: OR=1.16 (1.03, 1.32)

Sociometric status Aloise-Young 200535A

Ref: Average

Controversial: OR=1.68 (1.05, 2.67)

Neglected: OR=1.30 (0.80, 2.03)

Popular: OR=1.06 (0.70, 1.61)

Rejected: OR=1.85 (1.22, 2.79)

Y Positive

Unsupervised after school Henriksen 201055

Ref: ≤2 days


>2 days: OR=1.36 (0.98, 1.88)


>2 days: OR=0.83 (0.73, 0.96)

Y Positive

Environmental factors

Allowed to watch age-restricted

movies

Hanwinkel, Morgenstern

et al. 200851F

Ref: Never

Once in a while: RR=1.19 (0.85, 1.67)

Sometimes: RR=1.71 (1.33, 2.20)

All the time: RR=1.85 (1.27, 2.69)

Y Positive

Exposure to tobacco advertising

Hanewinkel 201150

Ref: Tertile 1 (low exposure)

Tertile 2 (medium): RR=0.93 (0.63, 1.36)

Tertile 3 (high): RR=1.46 (1.08, 1.97)

Y Positive

Henriksen 201055

[Scale: 4=often]



Y Positive

Exposure to other (non-tobacco)

advertising Hanewinkel 201150

Ref: Tertile 1 (low exposure)

Tertile 2 (medium): RR=0.99 (0.72, 1.34)

Tertile 3 (high): RR=0.98 (0.71, 1.34)

N

Exposure to smoking in

films/movies

Dalton 200341B

Ref: First quartile




Y Positive

Destefan 200445D Favorite film star smokes on-screen Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Ref: No OR=1.36 (1.02, 1.82)

Hanewinkel, Sargent

200852F

Ref: First quartile (Low exposure)




Y Positive

Henriksen 201055

[Scale: 4=often]



Y Positive

Sargent 200972F

Continuous variable rescaled so 5th percentile =

0 and 95th percentile =1 OR=2.76 (1.84 ,

4.15))

Y Positive

Tanski 200974 l

Ref: 5th vs. 95th percentile

Mixed movie character smoking:

Single model: HR=1.91 (1.49, 2.44)

Simultaneous model: HR=1.39 (1.04, 1.85)

Inverse movie character smoking:

Single model: HR=1.90 (1.47, 2.45)


Positive movie character smoking:

Single model: HR=2.02 (1.52, 2.67)


Y Positive

Thrasher 200975

Ref: First quartile




Y Positive


RRs for 1 decile increase in exposure

Exposure at each wave:

Wave 1: RRg=1.09 (1.03, 1.15)

Wave 2: RRg=1.09 (1.03, 1.16)

Wave 3: RRg=1.07 (1.00, 1.14)

Y Positive

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Cumulative exposure:

Waves 1&2: RRg=1.11 (1.04, 1.17)

Waves 1, 2 & 3: RRg=1.09 (1.02, 1.16)

Frequency of viewing movies in

different rating categories Jackson 200758

R-rated (Ref: Low)

White adolescents

Medium: ORn=1.57 (0.73, 3.35)

High: ORn=2.67 (1.07, 6.65)

Black adolescents

Medium: ORn=0.97 (0.42, 2.12)

High: ORn=1.75 (0.66, 4.62)

Y Positive

PG-13 rated (Ref: Low)

White adolescents

Medium: ORn=1.55 (0.65, 3.69)

High: ORn=1.83 (0.69, 4.94)

Black adolescents

Medium: ORn=1.11 (0.59, 1.87)

High: ORn=1.19 (0.61, 2.34)

N

PG-rated (Ref: Low)

White adolescents

Medium: ORn=1.36 (0.58, 3.17)

High: ORn=1.46 (0.65, 3.27)

Black adolescents

Medium: ORn=0.94 (0.41, 2.15)

High: ORn=1.46 (0.77, 2.78)

N

G-rated (Ref: Low)

White adolescents

Medium: ORn=0.55 (0.20, 1.46)

High: ORn=0.48 (0.18, 1.28)

N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Black adolescents

Medium: ORn=1.01 (0.46, 2.21)

High: ORn=1.30 (0.56, 3.00)

Other factors

Asthma

O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=1.00 (0.74, 1.36) N

Van De Ven, Engels,

Kerstjens 200779I

Current diagnosed asthma (Ref: No)

OR=0.69 (0.51, 0.93) Y Inverse

Current wheeze (Ref: No):

OR=0.83 (0.66, 1.05) N

Indication of asthma (Ref: No):

OR=1.06 (0.90, 1.24) N

Symptom severity [7-item scale, range 0-21]

(continuous variable)

OR=1.07 (0.83, 1.39)

N

Van De Ven 200981I

Adherence to asthma medication [4-items --

higher scores mean greater adherence]

Adjusted modeli: OR=0.21 (0.06, 0.75)

Complete modeli: OR= 0.24 (0.06, 0.99)

Y Inverse

Attitude toward asthma [13 items, 5-point

scale, higher scores mean better attitude]

(continuous)


Complete modeli: OR=0.92 (0.31, 2.74)

N

Coping by hiding asthma [4 items, 4-point

scale] (continuous)



Y Positive

Coping by ignoring asthma [4 items, 4-point

scale] (continuous)


Complete modeli: OR=1.18 ( 0.59, 2.38)

N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Coping by positive reappraisal [4 items, 4-

point scale] (continuous)


Complete modeli: OR=0.55 ( 0.25, 1.17)

N

Coping by restricting lifestyle [4 items, 4-point

scale] (continuous)



N

Coping by seeking information [4 items, 4-




N

Coping by worrying about asthma [3 items, 4-




N

Quality of Life –overall [32 items, 7-point

scale - higher scores mean greater quality of

life] (continuous)



N

Quality of Life - positive effects [7-point scale

- higher scores mean greater quality of life]

(continuous)

Adjusted modeli: OR==0.99 (0.79, 1.26)


N

Symptom severity [7-items, 3-point scale]

(continuous)


Complete modeli: OR= 1.39 (0.36, 5.43)

N

Birth weight Bohnert 200939 Ref: Normal birth weight

OR=1.05 (0.72, 1.51) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Compromised neurocognitive

functioning Harakeh 201253

Baseline speed (continuous - higher scores

mean slower reaction time)



N

Pattern search

Smoking at time 3: OR=1.13 (0.84, 1.52) N

Variability in task completion time



Y Positive

Inhibition of prepotent responses

Smoking at time 3: OR=2.13 (1.11, 4.11) Y Positive

Family member job loss Unger 200477 Ref: No OR=1.87 (1.23, 2.83) Y Positive

Few extracurricular activities Tanski 200974

Few extracurricular activities (comparison of

highest and lowest levels of ordinal variable)

HR=1.75 (1.31, 2.34)

Y Positive

Know someone with a smoking-

related disease Milton 200465 Ref: No OR=3.13 (1.38, ,7.10) Y Positive

Overweight O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=0.78 (0.59, 1.02) N

Participation in team sports O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=1.19 (0.95, 1.09) N

Physical activities in past week O’Loughlin 200966 Number of activities (continuous)

OR=1.01 (1.00, 1.02) Y Positive

Poor diet O’Loughlin 199867 Frequency of high fat/junk food consumption

(Ref: Infrequent/occasional) OR=1.6 (1.1, 2.1) Y Positive

Shopping frequency

Low = <0.5 visits/week

Moderate = 0.5-1.9 visits/week

High = 2.0-18.0 visits/week

Henriksen 201055

Ref: Low


Moderate: OR=1.64 (1.06, 2.55)

High: OR=2.58 (1.68, 3.97)


Moderate: OR=1.19 (1.00, 1.41)

High: OR=1.42 (1.19, 1.69)

Y Positive

Television-related variables O’Loughlin 200966 Hours per week (continuous)

OR=1.00 (0.99, 1.01) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Jackson 200758

Hours of use per day (Ref: below median)

White adolescents

Above median: ORn=1.32 (0.69, 2.53)

Black adolescents

Above median: ORn=0.96 (0.45, 2.01)

N

Frequency of use (Ref: 2-3 time per week)

White adolescents

Most days: ORn=1.21 (0.51, 2.89)

Daily: ORn=1.34 (0.54, 3.29)

All the time: ORn=1.71 (0.51, 5.75)

Black adolescents

Most days: ORn=1.81 (0.70, 4.69)

Daily: ORn=1.15 (0.39, 3.53)

All the time: ORn=1.73 (0.57, 5.27)

N

Television in bedroom (Ref: No)

White adolescents: ORn=2.15 (1.16, 3.98)

Black adolescents: ORn=0.65 (0.35, 1.19)

Y Positive

Parent had TV rule (Ref: Strongly agree)

White adolescents

Agree: ORn=0.90 (0.42, 1.96)

Disagree: ORn=1.11 (0.52, 2.03)

Strongly disagree: ORn=1.72 (0.68, 4.35)

Black adolescents

Agree: ORn=1.16 (0.55, 2.41)

Disagree: ORn=1.41 (0.65, 3.06)

Strongly disagree: ORn=1.98 (0.93, 4.20)

N

Worry about weight O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=1.25 (0.99, 1.58) N

Worry about relationship with

parents O’Loughlin 200966 Ref: No OR=1.22 (0.96, 1.56) N

Appendix



Wellman et al.



Youth uses other drugs

D’Amico 200642

Ref: No

Alcohol: OR=1.70 (p<0.05)

Marijuana: OR=3.04 (p<0.01)

Y Positive

McKelvey64

Smokes waterpipe (Ref: No)

Among boys: OR=3.43 (2.06, 5.69)

Among girls: OR=5.38 (3.43, 8.42)

Y Positive

O’Loughlin 200966 Alcohol (Ref: No) OR=2.81 (2.28, 3.47) Y Positive

Other tobacco (Ref: No) OR=4.90 (2.73, 8.80) Y Positive a All results are adjusted for covariates unless otherwise indicated. b N=the predictor was not statistically significant in any comparisons; Y=the predictor was statistically significant in at least one

comparison. c Direction of association, when statistically significant. d Studies conducted in the same cohort share a capital letter superscript: A - Aloise-Young 199635, Aloise-Young 200536; B - Dalton

200341, Sargent 200471; C - Den Exter Blokland 200643, Den Exter Blokland 200744, Engels 200447, Harakeh 200454; D - Distefan

200445, Gilpin 200549, Pierce 200268, Pierce 200569 (NB: Sample in 49 included 39 participants more than in 45, 68 & 69); E - Galanti48,

Rosendahl 200270; F - Hanewinkel 200851, Hanewinkel 200852, Sargent 200972; G - Jackson 199857, Jackson 199859; H - Spelman

200973, Wilkinson 200984; I - Van De Ven 200779, Van De Ven 200780, Van De Ven 200981; J - Wang 201182, Wang 201183; K -

Woodruff 200385, Woodruff 2004865. e Chang 201140: Bivariate results reported; Y or N indicates statistical significance in multivariate analysis of relative risk reduction

over time. f Sargent 200470B : Model 1 adjusted for age, sex, parent education and school; Model 2 adjusted for all predictors studied plus family

smoking, parental R-rated movie restriction, and the interaction between family smoking and movie restriction. g Titus-Ernstoff 200875: RRs for age, sex, race, parent education, school performance, friends smoking, parental smoking, maternal

monitoring, maternal responsiveness, rebelliousness, self-esteem, self-regulation, and sensation-seeking are unadjusted. RRs for movie

exposure are adjusted for all predictors studied. h Harakeh 200454C, Van De Ven, Engels, Otten79I: PMSC = path model standardized coefficient from structural equation model. i Van De Ven 200980I: Adjusted model includes age, education, ethnicity and parental smoking as covariates; complete model also

includes all other predictors investigated. j Wang, Ho, Lam 201181B: Model 1 adjusted for sex, place of birth, number of bedrooms, and clustering effect of schools and baseline

characteristics of age, smoking status of other family members, and SHS exposure outside home in the past seven days. Model 2 also

adjusted for secondhand smoke exposure at home and parental smoking. k Woodruff 200384J: Predictors entered simultaneously and adjusted for each other.

Appendix



Wellman et al.


l Tanski 200373: Single model adjusted for covariates; simultaneous model adjusted for covariates and other character types. m Huver 200656: ORs are derived from fully adjusted model including all predictors investigated. n Jackson 200758: ORs are from model adjusted for all covariates; movie-related and TV-related variables tested in separate models,

simultaneously within each category. o Lee 200262: RRs adjusted for school grades.

appendices - ars.els-cdn.com · appendix predictors of the onset of cigarette smoking: a systematic...

Documents