ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2012
Smoking trajectories among Koreans in Seoul and California: exemplifying a common error in age parameterization.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Identify Common Smoking Situations Among Korean American Emerging Adults.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2016Article
- Characteristics of emerging adulthood and e-cigarette use: Findings from a pilot study.Addictive behaviors · 2015Article
- Compliance with smoke-free policies in korean bars and restaurants in california: a descriptive analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2015Article
- The Relationship Between the Accumulated Number of Role Transitions and Hard Drug Use among Hispanic Emerging Adults.Journal of psychoactive drugsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Immigration to a nation with a stronger anti-smoking environment has been hypothesized to make smoking less common. However, little is known about how environments influence risk of smoking across the lifecourse. Research suggested a linear decline in smoking over the lifecourse but these associations, in fact, might not be linear. This study assessed the possible nonlinear associations between age and smoking and examined how these associations differed by environment through comparing Koreans in Seoul, South Korea and Korean Americans in California, United States. Data were drawn from population based telephone surveys of Korean adults in Seoul (N=500) and California (N=2,830) from 2001-2002. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (lowess) was used to approximate the association between age and smoking with multivariable spline logistic regressions, including adjustment for confounds used to draw population inferences. Smoking differed across the lifecourse between Korean and Korean American men. The association between age and smoking peaked around 35 years among Korean and Korean American men. From 18 to 35 the probability of smoking was 57% higher (95%CI, 40 to 71) among Korean men versus 8% (95%CI, 3 to 19) higher among Korean American men. A similar difference in age after 35, from 40 to 57 years of age, was associated with a 2% (95%CI, 0 to 10) and 20% (95%CI, 16 to 25) lower probability of smoking among Korean and Korean American men. A nonlinear pattern was also observed among Korean American women. Social role transitions provide plausible explanations for the decline in smoking after 35. Investigators should be mindful of nonlinearities in age when attempting to understand tobacco use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.