ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018
Boy Smokers' Rationalisations for Engaging in Potentially Fatal Behaviour: In-Depth Interviews in The Netherlands.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adolescent Smoking in Secondary Schools that Have Implemented Smoke-Free Policies: In-Depth Exploration of Shared Smoking Patterns.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adolescent smokers engage in cognitive rationalisation processes that lower perceptions of personal vulnerability to the health consequences of smoking. There is, however, hardly any evidence that provides in-depth insights on adolescents’ recurring rationalisations. Therefore, we explored how boy smokers deal with the knowledge that they are engaging in potentially fatal behaviour. Interviews were held with 16 boy smokers aged 16 to 17 years old. The qualitative analysis focussed on combining boys’ reasons about why they think they will not experience severe health consequences into coherent rationalisations that recurred among interviewees. Three rationalisations emerged from the analysis. First, boys trivialize the immediate consequences and think these can be compensated for and are outweighed by the benefits of smoking. Second, boys assume that smoking will only take place during adolescence and they will, therefore, recover from the damage inflicted. Third, boys believe that they have control over the amount and frequency of smoking and, thereby, can ensure that they will not experience fatal consequences. Boys’ recurring rationalisations build on their view that they are supposed to have fun and will not become typical adult smokers. Interventions should address these rationalisations in order to increase adolescents’ perceptions of personal vulnerability, and thereby contribute to decreasing adolescent smoking.
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.