ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. 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.
- Behavioral Precursors of Nicotine Product Use Trajectories Among Youth.American journal of preventive medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Items measuring tobacco use intentions are used to predict future use. Researchers combine items using different methods; however, no research has compared these methods' predictive validity. Here, we compare how well six methods of analyzing four intention items predict initiation of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, snus pouches, and other smokeless tobacco one year later. We analyzed youth and young adult never users from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. We compared six methods of analyzing Wave 3 intention items in predicting Wave 4 use: susceptibility scoring (susceptible is not answering "definitely no" to all items); dichotomizing the four-item average using two cut-points on the 1-4 response scale; and dichotomizing one item (next year use intention) with three cut-points. Analyses (1) tested whether each single-item predicted initiation; and (2) compared each method's (a) true positive rate (rate of correctly identifying future initiators), (b) true negative rate (rate of correctly identifying future non-initiators), and (c) model fit. Results were similar across products and age groups. Averaging items best predicted initiation in regression. Susceptibility scoring had the highest true positive rate but lowest true negative rate. False positives (incorrectly identifying someone as a future initiator) were best minimized by averaging items with a cutoff of 3, or using the single item with a 3 or 4 cutoff. Findings suggest researchers predicting tobacco use initiation using regression should average the four items; and researchers seeking to identify likely initiators should use different analytic methods depending on if they seek to maximize true positives or minimize false positives.
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.